Hi. Whatcha reading?
October 8, 2009 8:06 AM Subscribe

Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.
posted by kimdog (844 comments total) 416 users marked this as a favorite

Are the men who need this advice the sort who would actually seek it out?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

On the one hand, what the author says about picking up on body language and cues is fantastic (some people just want to be left alone sometimes, male AND female, and it's important to get that).

On the other hand...that...pre-date security set-up and post-date check-in with friends makes me wonder whether something may have happened to her. (However, to be fair, I should say that I have made arrangements with three guys I know that if I ever call them out of the blue and strike up a conversation, and I mention the word "chimichanga," it is actually a coded request to "COME AND FIND ME BECAUSE I AM ON A DATE THAT HAS GONE BAD AND I THINK I AM IN BIG TROUBLE").
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [17 favorites]

Also, someone linked to this (pdf) article in the comments, and I think it's helpful in illuminating the disparity between the cultural idea of a rapist as someone lurking in the bushes, waiting to strike, vs. the actual reality of rape as something disturbingly common.
posted by muddgirl at 8:14 AM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

muddgirl made both the comments I was going to make.

I read the article and am saddened that this woman feels this way on a daily basis, but I also don't think she speaks for all women. In fact, I am pretty sure she doesn't. She's right in that she gets to set her own level of risk assessment, but I think she set hers on the level of paranoia. That's not a good way to go through life.

I also feel bad that if she ever is a victim of a violent crime she won't be able to cope very well. It's possible to do everything correctly and still fail.

Also, she seems way more afraid of the strange man than the men she gets to know, and statistics show it's generally not the stranger you have to worry about.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:16 AM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

cjorgensen: Also, she seems way more afraid of the strange man than the men she gets to know, and statistics show it's generally not the stranger you have to worry about.

This.
posted by King Bee at 8:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

cjorgensen - I think you misunderstand me :) I completely agree with the post, and I don't think her level of paranoia is unwarranted at all. To put her post in context, I'm pretty sure it was written in reaction to some of the comments in this post about a recent xkcd comic. I think the "How To Talk To Women" tone is supposed to be a bit ironic. It's not really targeted at well-meaning guys who want to approach women on public transportation, but rather at people who don't seem to understand why some women are so defensive about being approached when they are sending clear DO NOT DISTURB signals. As I said in a comment on the OP link,

It’s a set-up to present the seemingly-simple idea that a person who ignores social cues to back off will ignore other cues to get what they want. And that is what a rapist does.

posted by muddgirl at 8:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

"I also don't think she speaks for all women. In fact, I am pretty sure she doesn't. She's right in that she gets to set her own level of risk assessment, but I think she set hers on the level of paranoia. That's not a good way to go through life."

Disregarding what she has to say? Check.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [34 favorites]

This seemed tremendously reasonable to me.

Are the men who need this advice the sort who would actually seek it out?

I think so, yeah; this essay seemed most aimed at your average sorta-nervous guy on the street, not some terrifying assault-prone gorilla, with the general thesis "Look, I know you're probably a pretty cool guy and all, you just gotta understand that there are power issues at play here." I think there are a number of dudes who would read this, nod, and keep it in the back of their heads the next time they try chatting up some lady on the street; should she seem disinterested, they can think of this essay, and be like, "Right, well, I remember the way this works." Certainly, I think this is stellar advice for that Johnny Casual Sex Fedora askme question, for example.
posted by Greg Nog at 8:24 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

"I think there are a number of dudes who would read this, nod, and keep it in the back of their heads the next time they try chatting up some lady on the street"
posted by banishedimmortal at 8:26 AM on October 8, 2009

Also, for anyone who thinks that a level of paranoia about being harassed in public is unwarranted, check out the Holla Back Blogs.

A massive post about street harassment at the F-word.

Even more street harassment.

I think some of you are getting hung up on the idea that Starling is writing just about getting raped. But it's so much more than that.
posted by muddgirl at 8:30 AM on October 8, 2009 [48 favorites]

Once we get the long form police report, the probability collapses, and we know what really happened.

Do we now? Since when has MeFi put any faith in what the Po Po have to say? Besides, a police report is evidence, it is not fact. A jury will decide what 'most likely' happened based on a propensity of evidence presented to them. Fact in a purely objective sense will never be resolved.
posted by spicynuts at 8:37 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

> I think you misunderstand me

I meant about the link going to the comments and the conversation not going well (nothing to do with what you thought about the article).

That xkcd article is beans and over thinking.

>Disregarding what she has to say? Check.

Clever, but I don't think I disregarded what she had to say. I read it, allowed for the fact that she has every right to feel this way, and made the judgement that I don't think she speaks for every woman and that living life in this manner would be sad. She also seems a bit misdirected in her worries.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:41 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Knowing how this goes, let me clarify...my above comment speaks ONLY ABOUT the 'probability collapses and we know what really happened' statement..in other words, the philosophical Schroedinger's Cat issue. I'm not making any comment on the reality of rape.
posted by spicynuts at 8:42 AM on October 8, 2009

I hope readers don't get overly hung up on her personal date precautions (she does say that women set their own risk tolerance) and hear her larger points about women's perspectives on strange men approaching them.

Repeated for being a good point. I do know that I raised an eyebrow at the degree of her precautions, but then about five seconds later I realized I have my own similar "precautions" -- they're more lenient, but they are there.

At most I may have encouraged her, when writing this article, to make it more clear that "every woman has her own unique set of risk prevention manouvers" rather than making it sound like all of us do specifically what she does, which is how it came across, a bit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:43 AM on October 8, 2009

exactly mudgirl, men truly have no idea what it's like to be a woman in this society. Men here can say "I think this" and "I think that" but they have no idea what it's like to be a victim of harrassment just by walking out your own front door.
posted by brneyedgrl at 8:43 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

Excellent post. I hope readers don't get overly hung up on her personal date precautions (she does say that women set their own risk tolerance) and hear her larger points about women's perspectives on strange men approaching them.

Definitely. Mocking the Nice Guy cliche? Encouraging caution in women? Educating men in why women might react negatively to a good faith gesture? All good. More should do it. But her specific examples are awful and her arguments around the illustrations are full of logical holes. I hope she gets better at what she does, because it is important.
posted by aswego at 8:44 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I have to say the guy who emailed her about 15 times within two days after the first date is a bit sad/scary, but by the same token she surely should have replied to the first email to say that she wasn't interested.

Come on. Have you considered the possibility that it TOOK her two days to get a chance to check her email, and she got all 15 of those emails at once? I don't know about you, but I don't check email in my sleep.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:45 AM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke?

I've never seen a tee shirt making a rape joke. Anyone seen such a tee shirt?
posted by xmutex at 8:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

That article reminded me of this, which was floating around various blogs a few weeks ago.

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.
posted by nooneyouknow at 8:49 AM on October 8, 2009 [220 favorites]

This would be a better article, and (probably) a better discussion thread, if the author didn't equate the word rape with whatever definition of sexual assault is used in her 1-in-6 figure. 1 in 6 women are not raped, and 1 in 60 men (author's figure) is not a rapist. Those are simply lies.
posted by rocket88 at 8:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

As a guy, I have to admit that I don't like to hear stuff like this. The main reason for that is that I am one of the Nice Guys (tm) who feels a little like a rapist just for getting caught checking out a woman's ass on the checkout line. I've never stalked or harassed a woman, and not only do I take "no" for an answer, but I've often jumped the gun on presuming "no." Guys like me go out of our way to avoid being creepy, to the extent that we rarely approach strange women in the first place.

That said, I'm well aware that there is the other kind of guy who really doesn't take no for an answer, calls a gal 10x a day, shows up at her job, etc. It really sucks to be tarred with the same brush, but I have to admit that her concerns are valid. I don't know if it's healthy for a woman to go around with this sort of stuff constantly on her mind, but the alternative can be even more unhealthy.
posted by Edgewise at 8:52 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

I've never seen a tee shirt making a rape joke. Anyone seen such a tee shirt?

On a t-shirt: "What's the worst thing about gang rape? Waiting your turn."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:54 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

There's nothing in this article that I disagree with, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What's next? "People of Color - How to Approach a White Person Without Looking Like a Mugger"?
posted by Robin Kestrel at 8:54 AM on October 8, 2009 [47 favorites]

I found this to be really interesting in part because I do things like these without really recognizing them, and I think it's one of the few places where my friends (primarily male) and I diverge. I'm married so I don't go on dates (except with my husband) but I definitely still have some of these safety mechanisms in place. When I walk home even in safe neighborhoods I hold my keys in my fist so that I can slash the face of a potential attacker, I am more likely to cross my arms and turn away on public transportation, I walk quickly and look straight ahead if I'm alone, and I tend to be acutely aware of potential escape routes. I've had people pull up next to me and make the "call me" signal from their car and although it's never been a problem I always hold my breath until they turn off.

I am generally against the "you can never understand" type of mentality; I think it's counterproductive, alienating and occasionally smug, which is why I think things like this can be valuable. I think my male friends probably AREN'T used to the feeling of discomfort I often have when I'm alone as a woman, and having a chance to talk about it in a reasonable manner seems like a really good thing to me.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

Even if she ignored the first one or two emails -- deliberately just ignored them, instead of didn't see them, or didn't have a chance to respond immediately because she had other things to do first, or got more than 1 at once and needed to take time to figure out how to respond to this guy -- once she did write him back, he still continued to write her.
posted by jeather at 8:56 AM on October 8, 2009

Clever, but I don't think I disregarded what she had to say. I read it, allowed for the fact that she has every right to feel this way, and made the judgement that I don't think she speaks for every woman and that living life in this manner would be sad. She also seems a bit misdirected in her worries.

Well, you called her paranoid, and overall wasn't fair to her. There's a difference in her having a "right" to feel how she does, and her feelings themselves being "valid". And that's the thing: of and in themselves, her feelings towards men who ignore her boundaries are always valid, because they're her boundaries and she gets to set them.
posted by Sova at 8:56 AM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

I found this post compelling because it, in more succinct terms, is the same argument I've made to both my boyfriend and best guy friend who were puzzled by interactions with women in public places. And neither of them are scary or "tone-deaf" when it comes to social interactions. In the year before he met me, my bf tried to strike up a conversation with a woman on a subway train, who shut the conversation down by saying "I don't need any new friends". He found that to be harsh, and wondered to me why someone would be so "cold".

I don't go as far as the author in thinking of every single strange man as a rapist, but I do think there is a lot to be said here for honoring personal space and conversational cues, and understanding the shift from being perceived as "unwanted interaction" to "possible threat" when those cues go unnoticed.
posted by kimdog at 8:58 AM on October 8, 2009

This seemed tremendously reasonable to me.

To me, too.

More than a decade ago, I was waiting at a bus stop after 11pm and the only other person in the area was a young woman who was standing about three feet behind me. I'm a tall, big guy. Was coming home from work, dressed in a shirt and tie.

I sneezed loudly, and she *screamed*. This blood-curdling, piercing scream that scared the bejeezus out of me. I whirled around. As we both stared at each other, hyperventilating, I asked her if she was okay. She was. I'd startled her. We struck up a conversation. A few months earlier, she'd been mugged. Said she was a little nervous. We talked about it. I tried to be reassuring.

I had barely noticed her presence before that moment. I was on my way home and had my mind on a hot meal. But she had been watching me closely from the moment I turned the corner and approached the stop. To her, I was a potential threat and needed to be watched closely.

These days, I try to be aware of that dynamic when I commute home late from work. No one deserves to be intimidated or made to feel uncomfortable, even inadvertently.
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on October 8, 2009 [137 favorites]

I have to say the guy who emailed her about 15 times within two days after the first date is a bit sad/scary, but by the same token she surely should have replied to the first email to say that she wasn't interested.

Would have been easier for both of them.

Or that could have escalated his behavior, since you see that he is still sending her emails after being told not to do so. It's the same reason women give men who approach them in public that uneasy rictus of civility rather than not smiling and ignoring them. Because no one wants to go from being hollered at with 'Hay baby!' to 'BITCH! YOU BITCH! YOU UPPITY BITCH!' It is kind of a downer, even if you don't want either option.

And her precautions are probably not even conscious efforts any more. When it's the water you swim in, you stop thinking about it.
posted by winna at 9:00 AM on October 8, 2009 [32 favorites]

I've never seen a tee shirt making a rape joke. Anyone seen such a tee shirt?

No means no. Well maybe if I'm drunk.
Anti-abortion! But Pro-Date-Rape
posted by Axle at 9:00 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Those are simply lies.

Did you read the fact sheet I linked to? Here it is again. Because while 14.8% (the percentage of women raped at some point in their life) is slightly lower than 1 in 6, it is really, really not that far off.

If we ask men "have you raped someone", the figure for self-reported rapists is obviously low. But when we poll men about behaviors that are considered rape, studies come up with a number between 4 and 10 percent. This is much higher than the 1-in-60 estimated by the author. Again, I must stress that we are not just talking about violent assualt with physical penetration. We are also talking about date rape. We are talking about coersive rape. We're talking about rape in the context of an emotionally abusive relationship. We are talking about taking advantaged of an inebriated state.

Also, she seems way more afraid of the strange man than the men she gets to know, and statistics show it's generally not the stranger you have to worry about.

Well, I think what she's saying is that, to prevent people she knows from raping her, she tries really hard not to get to know people who seem like they have the capacity to disregard her person-hood so much that they rape her. So yeah, she's probably in agreement with you.
posted by muddgirl at 9:01 AM on October 8, 2009 [44 favorites]

So I read the whole thing carefully and I don't really understand. She's saying some dude is not entitled to some girl's high opinion just coz he's nice? Doh? That works in non-meeting-people-off-the-street-contexts too. Regardless of 'power issues' or 'potential rapist' etc. I don't think it's unfair for women to be wary of strange men. Not just because of rape or whatever but just hey, who knows how this is going to end up? If you don't care about them you don't. It would also help if men stopped being stalkery douchebags.

I really hate how quickly this Nice Guy™ meme has taken over the internet. It's stupid.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 9:02 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I read it, allowed for the fact that she has every right to feel this way, and made the judgement that I don't think she speaks for every woman and that living life in this manner would be sad. She also seems a bit misdirected in her worries.

Then again, though, you rarely end up with a mindset like that without good reason. I originally wondered whether something might have happened to provoke that kind of reaction -- because hell, if I'd been on a date that went bad, I'd make some very distinct plans too. As it is, the "chimichanga" code word I worked out came after I'd come back from a first date where the guy suddenly got pretty creepy (when you've only known a woman for two hours, it is far too soon to proclaim that she is "everything you've always looked for in a woman"-- and it is never appropriate to flat-out tell her that "however, you are going to have to stop cutting your hair and let it grow long").
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:02 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Anyone seen such a tee shirt?

Spend more time on a college campus. You see a fair number of screwing-passed-out-chicks-is-awesome–themed T-shirts, along with the occasional really egregious specimen like the one Callipygos mentioned upthread.

And yeah, dudes have every right to wear those shirts, and you have every right to snicker at them, and neither even necessarily says anything bad about you as a person (free speech blah blah censorship blah thoughtcrime blah blah blah) you've gotta admit it's kind of a no-brainer how they might make it harder to chat up strange women.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:02 AM on October 8, 2009

I have to say the guy who emailed her about 15 times within two days after the first date is a bit sad/scary, but by the same token she surely should have replied to the first email to say that she wasn't interested.

Would have been easier for both of them.

Maybe you're right, DanCall. But after two days she emailed him back asking him not to contact her again. That should be the end of the story, but dude is still emailing her. You have to admit, that's just fucking creepy.

I can't help but wonder what kind of bizarre wishful thinking is going through that guy's head. Like, what kind of delusional bullshit does he say to himself before he clicks send? "Maybe this email will charm her, now that I've given her time to cool off!" I might even feel sorry for the dude if he was not being such a jackass.
posted by joedan at 9:03 AM on October 8, 2009

Also, if anyone doesn't get why that xkcd comic is really, ridiculously infuriating for a lot of people, I made a more realistic one.
posted by muddgirl at 9:04 AM on October 8, 2009 [87 favorites]

Thanks for posting this, it was a good read. Rather than quibbling about any of the author's own personal details or whether or not or to what extent the article is representative of all women, the walkaway central message remains clear: a woman in public has a different and variably defensive mindset for good reason and guys should be aware of this and err on the side of caution (silence and space) unless there are clear clues that invite interaction. It's not necessarily simple - perceiving social clues correctly - but being unsure doesn't mean you have to try harder; it means that you should probably stop trying to get a date or attention or a smile, seems to me.
posted by peacay at 9:06 AM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

1 in 6 women are not raped, and 1 in 60 men (author's figure) is not a rapist. Those are simply lies.

Please read the study linked by muddgirl above. If approximately 5-6% of men will self-report having committed rape or attempted rape when the question is framed without using the word "rape", and if 63% of those men admit to have commited these acts multiple times, then, yes, at least 1 in 6 women have been raped, and 1 in 60 men are rapists. Actually, those figures are probably very low. (Not to mention the fact that those percentages spike to 9-15% when "lesser" crimes of sexual assault are included.)

I don't want to believe it, either. That doesn't make it any less true.
posted by philotes at 9:08 AM on October 8, 2009 [19 favorites]

I came on here to say I'm a little tired of hearing this, because starting off by assuming someone isn't interested (and is actually threatened) means that I've only ever once approached a stranger, and many relationships with people were much delayed because I spent far too long avoiding being a dick by hitting on them and reading the worst into every signal. I was going to say this article is exactly why me and the friends I know find it so hard to find the balance between being confident and coming across as a thug.

But you know what- (and I'm just realising this now)- my being frustrated is a sign that things are going in the right direction. Next time I shy away from talking to a stranger due to a fear of coming across the wrong way, I'll try to be thankful that at least we've come this far, even if I do find it frustrating that we haven't made it all the way.
posted by twirlypen at 9:09 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think there are a number of dudes who would read this, nod, and keep it in the back of their heads the next time they try chatting up some lady on the street; should she seem disinterested, they can think of this essay, and be like, "Right, well, I remember the way this works."

This. There seems to be a bit of two-way ignorance about this. (where "a bit" = "a lot")

Many men have no idea how often attractive women get hit on. That is to say: constantly.

And many women have no idea that this is not visible/obvious to men.

It sucks to be, not even approaching someone out of (sexual/romantic) interest, but really just chatting with a random stranger about the weather, and get the defensive OMG I SO DON'T WANT TO BE HIT ON defensive onslaught. It helps to have a reminder of why this is the way it is. It's not your fault. It's not her fault. Observe the signals, recognize the issue, and move on.

I had barely noticed her presence before that moment. I was on my way home and had my mind on a hot meal. But she had been watching me closely from the moment I turned the corner and approached the stop. To her, I was a potential threat and needed to be watched closely.

I sometimes find myself along a path -- to the bus, to my workplace, to the theatre, wherever -- and finding myself some distance behind some lone woman who inevitably (slight exaggeration) enters a state of paranoia. Is he following me? Same turn? Yep. Again? Oh yeah. Uh oh, whatamIgoingtodo? (hint: EVERYBODY takes this path to the bus in the morning.) I used to stop and tie my shoe, or do something else to put some distance between us; even veer off and take a longer path, but that frankly felt a little opressive and a bit like adopting someone else's deal as my own. So now I just sigh and let it play out. It's nobody's fault; it's just unfortunate all around.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [12 favorites]

nebulawindphone: "you've gotta admit it's kind of a no-brainer how they might make it harder to chat up strange women."

That's why I always save my rape joke shirt for the second date.
posted by graventy at 9:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos : On a t-shirt: "What's the worst thing about gang rape? Waiting your turn."

I would find something like this immensely useful: it's so hard to find willing subjects to test my flamethrower on, and people wearing shirts like this would take the guesswork out of who to choose.
posted by quin at 9:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

As a woman, I will admit to being paranoid (though about everything since I have some anxiety issues). I used to work really early shifts and would be walking to my car at 4:15 am. I would always check under my car for potential creepers, as well as in the back seat before getting inside my car, not to mention looking over my shoulder while trying to keep my head up as to not appear an easy target. It's tiring, actually.

I don't see every stranger as a potential rapist, it's just that as a woman, I feel I do have to take extra precautions. I feel I can't rely on others to rescue me if something does happen, so it's in my hands. (Although, maybe I'm not giving society enough credit here, and there are people who would step up if they saw something sketchy happening...)

Also, those tee-shirts are appalling.
posted by too bad you're not me at 9:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

exactly mudgirl, men truly have no idea what it's like to be a woman in this society. Men here can say "I think this" and "I think that" but they have no idea what it's like to be a victim of harrassment just by walking out your own front door.

Saying "you can never understand" are in effect saying "don't bother trying to understand". The outcome is the same.
posted by Scoo at 9:11 AM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

I don't think the xkcd comic is about trying to talk to a cute girl on the subway - it's about trying to talk to someone about their cute netbook. Okay, maybe not with the last panel, but that was my first reaction.

I'm married, I'm not looking to pick up either boys or girls. But I often want to compliment someone on their cool shoes or something, and refrain from doing so because I'm worried they will take it the wrong way.

If only real life had favourites.
posted by jb at 9:11 AM on October 8, 2009 [13 favorites]

because starting off by assuming someone isn't interested (and is actually threatened) means that I've only ever once approached a stranger

Well, the post makes it pretty clear that you don't have to assume - women, because they are human beings, communicate via body language. She covers several typical "body language" signs that may indicate a woman is interested in casual conversation with a stranger. She also details many signs that indicate, "Don't talk to me unless it is an emergency."

It's really not all that hard. Men seem so adept at reading the body language of other men, and yet some pretend like it is a mystery to them.
posted by muddgirl at 9:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

twirlypen it's sort of a hit and miss thing where women take something positively from one guy that they wouldn't take from others etc. Like you can see women responding well to cat-calling/street harassment but that doesn't mean you/I should be the one doing it, default to being sensible. I personally don't think the whole 'signs of obvious interest' thing is a huge prerequisite for saying hi or whatever but keeping it rare and quickly working off the response is good.

I once asked this woman if I knew her from college, she spun around when I said hey and when I asked she was like "no!" I'm like "okay". I just thought I knew her from class. Whatever. Doesn't mean she's evil or that I'm necessarily the worst human being evar. It's just acceptable friction. I once ran into a set of lingerie-clad mannequins trying to avoid bumping into / excessive eye contact with a gaggle of girls walking right at me and they giggled when they were behind me. Overcorrection. What can ya do.

I've struck up enough conversations with strangers and strangers have struck up enough conversations with me for me to rule out the whole "they'll let you know if they want to talk to you" thing, man or woman. I've sat silently for long periods next to someone who then proceeded to babble for ages as soon as one of us made an excuse to talk!
posted by Non Prosequitur at 9:17 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

In the year before he met me, my bf tried to strike up a conversation with a woman on a subway train, who shut the conversation down by saying "I don't need any new friends". He found that to be harsh, and wondered to me why someone would be so "cold".

Although practically from the guy's perspective there's not much difference between getting rejected, and not approaching because their body language indicates they will reject you. Cold is cold.
posted by smackfu at 9:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

One thing about those studies liked by mudgirl:

If you order by year and plot a trendline, assuming all studies measure the same thing, incidence rate drops from 10% in ~1984 to 7% in ~2002. Significance is pretty low (r² is 0.15). This may well be imaginary. It would be interesting to see more data.
posted by bonehead at 9:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Those t-shirts make my skin crawl. Who the hell would think they're funny? :(
posted by zarq at 9:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

you can see women responding well to cat-calling/street harassment

.....WHERE have you seen this?....And cutesy rom-com movies don't count.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:20 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Whatever may be said about the rest of the article, I was astounded by this brilliant gem of statistical reasoning:

One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. [...] if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty.

Score one for feminism!
posted by k. at 9:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

But I often want to compliment someone on their cool shoes or something, and refrain from doing so because I'm worried they will take it the wrong way.

I'm not the most social creature, but I've honestly never had a real problem with this. A simple honest smile followed by "Hey, that's really cool." and then you move on.

It's the last part that most people seem to get all awkward with, because they don't want to just compliment, they want to have a continuing conversation, and that is a bit more of a challenge.

Fortunately being married has taken the stress of having to chat with the opposite sex for anything other than just the fun of doing so off my shoulders. Now I can say things like "Those are really cool shoes, do you mind if I ask where you got them? My wife would love something like that..." which seems to help defuse the idea that I'm talking as a way of hitting on them.
posted by quin at 9:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I am generally against the "you can never understand" type of mentality; I think it's counterproductive, alienating and occasionally smug, which is why I think things like this can be valuable. I think my male friends probably AREN'T used to the feeling of discomfort I often have when I'm alone as a woman, and having a chance to talk about it in a reasonable manner seems like a really good thing to me.

Yes. I think men can get it, because we're all human and can share experiences. But it's hard to really understand the how normal and habitual concerns about safety are for women. I used to live in a not so good area of Manchester, and walking home in the dark it was almost instinctual to cross the road if a man was standing or waiting on the path. I never made eye contact with drivers because it was a red light district and they might take it as a sign to stop and hassle me. And before going to unlock my front door I would check who was in the street in case I had been followed. It seems crazy, but it's not, as those situations are harder to get out of than they are to prevent in the first place. I would rather manage my own boundaries like that than have somebody trespass them.

Many men have no idea how often attractive women get hit on. That is to say: constantly.

Or stared at. I'm probably not even very attractive in most men's book, but cut it out already! The difference between looking normally and staring sexually is pretty obvious, and it surprises me how many men think that nobody's going to notice.
posted by Sova at 9:21 AM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Saying "you can never understand" are in effect saying "don't bother trying to understand". The outcome is the same.

I never said "you can never understand"....I guess I'm saying typically most men don't take the time to understand. They have trouble putting themselves in someone elses's place. I believe anyone can learn, but you have to want to learn and do better.
posted by brneyedgrl at 9:22 AM on October 8, 2009

It's really not all that hard. Men seem so adept at reading the body language of other men, and yet some pretend like it is a mystery to them.

Please don't assume bad faith, or that a man is pretending to have difficulty in that regard. I've never been good at reading those signals from women or men. I would be highly surprised to find that I'm the only guy on the planet with that problem.
posted by zarq at 9:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Men seem so adept at reading the body language of other men, and yet some pretend like it is a mystery to them.

Ouch. If that's the way this conversation is going to be had, then I agree with your prediction at the top of the thread (not a great idea, btw).

Men are better at reading men's signals. Women are better at reading women's.

If women were great at reading signals from men, there wouldn't be rampant paranoia, would there? You'd correctly suss out intentions and sort accordingly.

I don't think we need to jump to conclusions of "pretending" not to understand where women are coming from. Some guys don't understand. Some do.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Rocket88: 1 in 6 women are not raped, and 1 in 60 men (author's figure) is not a rapist. Those are simply lies.

You're right about the 1 in 6 figure being wrong; the real figure is 1 in 3-to-1 in 4.

Rape is a vastly under-reported crime.

If anyone is interested in reading a spectacular discussion about how so many women go through their daily lives on constant alert (and no, that doesn't make them "paranoid"), and how men fundamentally won't understand it 100% simply because it's not how they have to live--though many men in the discussion take careful and honest looks at themselves and their attitudes/pasts, comment brilliantly, and openly discuss how much more aware they've become of the invisible misogyny that our culture breathes in every day, I cannot recommend this discussion thread highly enough (warning: some vivid accounts of sexual assaults perpetrated on various commenters; 4255 comments; and it's on livejournal--that's a warning so those of you who dismiss threads out-of-hand just because they're on livejournal can stay the fuck away). And yes, there are some "I resent this discussion because I'M not a rapist, and by discussing this, you are saying I AM!!!!!!" men who have to make everything about themselves. They are dealt with strongly, but without insult. In fact, while the comments can get heated, they are never low-level as you see on so many other sites on the internet. It's very much like discussion here, actually.

It's really one of the most fascinating and thoughtful discussions on the topic I've ever seen.
posted by tzikeh at 9:24 AM on October 8, 2009 [31 favorites]

Another weird stat from the 1 in 6 study: "Specifically, women who were raped in the previous 12 months averaged 2.9 rapes, while men averaged 1.2 rapes.
posted by smackfu at 9:24 AM on October 8, 2009

thank god that link was blocked by my proxy here at work. maybe i'll get a proxy at home, too.
posted by msconduct at 9:26 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I would like to add to this guideline, that if a woman smiles at you and makes eye contact, that does not automatically mean she wants to have your babies. Some women are just like that, we are not teases, we are not flirts, we just refuse to live in fear of making eye contact with strange men. What would be awesome, would be if you could smile back and maybe nod. And if you feel it, say something polite. We may respond, or we may just smile and go on. That doesn't mean we are bitches or trying to fuck with you. It just may mean that we think that human contact should be positive.

And for god's sake, if you ask us for our number or for a date and we decline, please, please, please do not assume that it's because we are dykes or a bitch and hate men. It might be because we actually, really do have a significant other. Or because you look weird and we don't want to date you. Or something completely different. It's not personal though, really (despite the weird comment) nine times out ten, it's just because we don't feel it.
posted by teleri025 at 9:26 AM on October 8, 2009 [26 favorites]

I talk to people all the time. I must look approachable or something, because complete strangers of all sexes and orientations chatter at me everywhere I go.

It is actually very easy to tell which ones from which I should back away slowly.

SIGNS THE STRANGER YOU'RE TALKING TO HAS BOUNDARY ISSUES!
- They compliment me on a physical characteristic. 'Cute shoes!' is a harmless compliment that, if I ever wore cute shoes, I would be proud to receive. 'Cute [body part]!' not so much.

- They ignore my body language. If, when I am walking my somewhat unusual dog, someone walking by on the sidewalk says 'Is that a greyhound?' and I nod and walk on, it is a bad sign for them not to realize I'm in a hurry and get pissy about my walking on and continue to pepper me with questions. Or if I am wearing headphones in a store so that my personal shopping soundtrack is Einstein on the Beach, motioning for me to take off my headphones to talk to me indicates that the person does not respect my need, like Garbo, to be alone.

- They invade my space. This one is tricky, because my space bubble contains multitudes, but if the person you are trying to talk to backs away or turns to the side as you approach, back off a little bit. People who are not sensitive to space bubbles are not always ignorant of the dynamics of space - sometimes they do it deliberately to see how well you defend your ground.

- They give me unwanted advice. This one is a judgment call, because sometimes it is helpful to get unwanted advice. It is the way the advice is proffered that makes this a warning sign. Saying 'hey, I bought that brand of running shoe and it fell apart in three days' is great. Telling me I shouldn't drink that soda because it has a lot of calories, not so much.
posted by winna at 9:26 AM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos hmm few times but two examples that leap to mind (1) in front of the boston public library. dudes saying 'that's nice mami' etc. the women ahead flipping their hair, walking with flair etc. in response. they were definitely strangers, i'd say 80% probability. (2) The other day someone walked by my sister saying "this" to her (totally different much more conservative country) and she bragged about it. I kinda asked her about it, saying men (or my type) try not to say these things because blah blah etc. and she's like, she said something strange which is like you can choose to get upset or take it well so there may be some non-genuine dealing-with-it response that goes into taking it positively.

I guess when I said 'harassment' i just meant verbal expressions of appreciation not people asking women to do things or mocking them or teasing them sexually or touching them etc. Again, I'm not saying this gives anyone a right to try to call out people like that (or even compliment them discretely if they're strangers, not on their looks) but that what's creepy is variable with the people involved. If someone says "come sit over here" to you in a bar you'd respond differently depending on whether you wanted to sit near them or not right? That's all I meant.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 9:27 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I've struck up enough conversations with strangers and strangers have struck up enough conversations with me for me to rule out the whole "they'll let you know if they want to talk to you" thing, man or woman. I've sat silently for long periods next to someone who then proceeded to babble for ages as soon as one of us made an excuse to talk!

I think the disconnect here is that she's not necessarily referring solely to an initial comment. It's one thing to just say "hey, nice blouse" and that be it. It's another to say "hey, nice blouse" and then try to continue the conversation. Sometimes you have time to accept the one quick comment, and sometimes you don't -- and if you don't, but someone still tries to keep talking to you, that's also annoying.

The person who sat next to you who babbled for ages clearly wanted to talk. You assessed the situation properly. If she had given one-word answers, and YOU were the one who babbled for ages, then that would have been a case of you assessing the situation improperly.

Really, it's all about noticing "does it look like this person wants to continue talking to me? No? Then I should back off."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:28 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

I used to think this kind of thing was a bit over the top and into the realm of paranoia until a conversation with a University of London student union official some years ago.

She told me that rape and sexual assault were effectively the norm among the students she represented. Such things as 'No Means No' and 'Reclaim The Night' campaigns that I remember from my own early 90's student days were widely seen among her female students as a completely pointless waste of time. Resources instead went towards counselling and self-defense.

It was a depressing but eye-opening conversation.
posted by motty at 9:31 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

What would be awesome, would be if you could smile back and maybe nod. And if you feel it, say something polite. We may respond, or we may just smile and go on.

That would be super-cool, and I want to live in that universe (and will do everything I can to help make it happen). But one confounding variable is the somewhat circuitous approaches women make toward men, which typically only resolve, schrodinger-style, when they've passed/been flunked. Like the girl who looked me up and down the day I was wearing a suit, stopped, and asked me for directions to the liquor store. "Sure! You see that building over there? You can take that entrance in and follow it along the right wall till you enter the mall proper and then the liquor store is about three doors down from that, or you can follow the outside till you get to the entrance there and it's first thing on your left."

*girl pauses... looks at me... nods*

"Well... bye."

Only later I'm like "D'OH".

But I mean, really, WTH was that? Directions? If you want more, be a little brave. Noteworthy side effect: we'll stop thinking that every girl who asks for directions is hitting on us. Some of us never make that assumption.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

On a t-shirt: "What's the worst thing about gang rape? Waiting your turn."

And you have seen regular-seeming men walking down a regular-seeming street whistling a regular-seeming tune and wearing this shirt?
posted by xmutex at 9:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Today I learned that if you compliment the computer of a woman you don't know, you are perpetuating "rape culture."
posted by nanojath at 9:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

I thought this was an excellent article. It's always handy to read something that details a perspective that is inaccessible to me because of my sex.

I'd like some help here; I'm looking at you muddgirl. You've already started to answer my question. I read the fact sheet and I've read similar ones before. What I'm wondering is, how are these statistics compiled? Is the definition of rape used as simple as "coercive sex"? Sexual assault? What do these numbers mean?

Please note, I'm not questioning the veracity of the numbers. I'm accepting them at face value. But I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around the notion that 1 in 60 men (number from article, assuming the distribution of rapists cuts across demographic lines) is a rapist and, by corollary, should be incarcerated.

Thanks!
posted by Maugrim at 9:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Today I learned that if you compliment the computer of a woman you don't know, you are perpetuating "rape culture."

Today, I learned that many people delight in pretending to not get the point.

Go ahead and compliment the woman on her computer. Just don't expect (a) a conversation, (b) her phone number, or (c) a blow job.
posted by muddgirl at 9:35 AM on October 8, 2009 [78 favorites]

True story, a couple weeks ago I was on my way to take the GRE across town, standing on the subway platform, going over geometry formulae in my head, when this guy comes up to me and stands right in front of me, about a foot away from me, facing me, until I look at him.

HIM: What's your name?
ME: What?!
HIM: What's your name?
ME (deciding that pretending to be deaf is the fastest way to get out of this): What?
HIM: What's your name?
ME: What?
HIM: Heather? Is your name Heather?
ME: What?
HIM: You go to college? Where do you go to college?
ME (giving up on the deaf façade): I don't.
HIM: When did you graduate?
ME: A while ago.
HIM: When, like 2006?
ME: [cold stare]
HIM: 2006?
ME: [blink]
HIM: 2006.

Anyway, ladies, don't pretend to be deaf; it doesn't work.
posted by oinopaponton at 9:36 AM on October 8, 2009 [16 favorites]

I'm just doin' my part by striking up conversations with all kinds of strangers about the cruel inequities of the world and not hittin' on any of them.
posted by klangklangston at 9:37 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

And you have seen regular-seeming men walking down a regular-seeming street whistling a regular-seeming tune and wearing this shirt?

Yes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:37 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Having consigned myself to the role of one of the villains in this thread I will additionally point out that being unsure about what qualities something possesses doesn't make it "Schrödinger's."
posted by nanojath at 9:38 AM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

You are a model for us all, klang. A hero of the people!
posted by winna at 9:38 AM on October 8, 2009

[Glenn Beck rape jokes considered harmful - defend your right to use them in MeTa if you want.]
posted by jessamyn at 9:39 AM on October 8, 2009

Some women don't mind being whistled at, stared at and commented on, (a few), but they are many more women who are more fearful and agitated by being singled out and noticed by strangers. Nobody knows what people deal with in their hearts and minds. I'm pretty sure we should assume nothing and leave people alone and let them get where they are going.
posted by brneyedgrl at 9:39 AM on October 8, 2009

Glenn Beck rape jokes considered harmful

Not harmful, just stupid.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:39 AM on October 8, 2009

Those t-shirts make my skin crawl. Who the hell would think they're funny? :(

They're funny because they show irreverence towards the taboo topic of date rape. And because they're offensive. I'm willing to bet that a substantial percentage of the college-age dudes who sport these tees would never actually commit the alluded-to felonies. Thus, there is a level of ironic humor as well. I tend find things that fly in the face of political correctness to be knee-jerk funny even if they really aren't all that clever -- so I definitely see why people would wear these. Please don't imply, however, that I'm saying date rape is just a "PC" issue, or that I would ever wear or buy one of these t-shirts, associate with a person wearing these t-shirts, or that I even think the t-shirts are funny. Its just that I think that's where the humor is coming from and so I'm trying to make an earnest explanation.
posted by gagglezoomer at 9:40 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

"I'm willing to bet that a substantial percentage of the college-age dudes who sport these tees would never actually commit the alluded-to felonies. Thus, there is a level of ironic humor as well."

I've seen similar shirts, but never seen dudes wearing them. It was always women.
posted by klangklangston at 9:43 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yes

No, you have not. You have not seen someone walking down a street with your hypothetical gang rape joke. You just have not. You cannot say it, either, because you haven't seen it.
posted by xmutex at 9:43 AM on October 8, 2009

Yeah, but offensive jokes (and I love em) need to be targeted. You tell your friend an offensive joke because they'll be shocked and appalled and not personally hurt by it. A t-shirt that randomly broadcasts offensiveness is maybe not the way to go.

Of course, randomly broadcasted offensiveness is pretty much the frat boy m.o.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:44 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

You know in the past few weeks, I have both struck up a conversation with a young woman, and had another one strike up a conversation with me. Neither experience was particularly fraught with peril on either side, and no one got raped or otherwise traumatized. All in all, it was no big deal. I think most people see it that way.
posted by dortmunder at 9:45 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Go ahead and compliment the woman on her computer. Just don't expect (a) a conversation, (b) her phone number, or (c) a blow job.

Oh no no no. This is completely ignoring the linked article, which essentially says: if you don't get the go ahead through body language, or if the woman in question is busy, talking to her places you #1 on the "Men who are about to rape me" list.
posted by TypographicalError at 9:45 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I found this post compelling because it, in more succinct terms, is the same argument I've made to both my boyfriend and best guy friend who were puzzled by interactions with women in public places.

What I think people forget is that people do not walk outside their homes, go shopping, run errands, and go to work because they want to meet people. They do so because they want to shop, run their errands, and go to work. It just so happens that they do so in communities with lots of people and where walking everywhere is necessary. One of the basics of etiquette in places like cities is the acknowledgement that living in a city requires large amounts of people to live in close proximity while also respecting each other's privacy: the public streets are not your frat party.

But I often want to compliment someone on their cool shoes or something, and refrain from doing so because I'm worried they will take it the wrong way.

You know, if you have a practical reason for doing so, women, being normal people, respond much like normal people. In my experience, "Where did you get those shoes?" elicits the information you are interested in: since people are interested in being helpful, they will generally let you know where they got their shoes.

Generally, though, I avoid commenting on women's clothes at work. No good can come of that: mostly because the dress people choose to wear at work is worn because they don't want to get attention for what they're wearing.
posted by deanc at 9:46 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

you can see women responding well to cat-calling/street harassment

.....WHERE have you seen this?....And cutesy rom-com movies don't count.

Non Prosequitur, you just gave some examples of where you see this happening, and admitted that the instance in which your sister explained her reaction to it involved a certain "it's happened - now how do I deal with it?" reasoning. I'd conjecture that most of the "responding well" you witness is because of this.

Empress, I'll admit to "responding well" myself on occasion - for example, when the guy calling out that I look sexy is standing stationary and we're on a long street and it's going to be while before I pass out of range of him, and I don't want his "compliments" to turn into "Hey! I just said you look sexy! Is that how you treat a guy who pays you a compliment! I'm talking to you, you ugly-ass bitch!!!" If I'm too tired or too nervous or feeling too vulnerable to deal with that, then I'll respond to his cat-calling with a smile and a "Thank you," and hope that he lets it drop. If I feel it's necessary I might apologize for "being in a hurry" and thus being unable to stop and subject myself to more harassment. I sometimes feel guilty for reacting this way, knowing it makes men like Non Prosequitur think I enjoy it and thus question their own policy of not harassing women, but I cannot fight every battle every single day. First I must ask myself, "Am I safe?" If the answer is "no," or "possibly not" then I get a free pass to extricate myself from the situation however I see fit.

Anyway, I'd venture a guess that that's the primary reason one might witness a woman "responding well" to harassment.
posted by philotes at 9:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [34 favorites]

Doubt the numbers? See this Department of Justice document: Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey, from November 1998. Dated, but full of numbers, graphs, definitions and whatnot.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:49 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

No, you have not. You have not seen someone walking down a street with your hypothetical gang rape joke. You just have not. You cannot say it, either, because you haven't seen it.

How the hell do you know that?

You know, this is pretty illustrative of the article in question -- I am clearly stating something, and xmutex is choosing to disregard my clearly-communicated statement because xmutex believes something else. xmutex is ignoring what I'm saying, assuming I must be wrong, even though I'm fucking saying quite clearly, that yes, I did see what I saw.

And when you have one person clearly sending out one very specific message and another person ignoring it, then you get conflict.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [93 favorites]

"You are a model for us all, klang. A hero of the people!"

It is some sacrifice to give of myself so freely, but I do it for you, winna, so that you may know hope.
posted by klangklangston at 9:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Maugrim - I haven't read the studies linked to in the PDF, but they are available through ILL at your local library. The "methodology" section should include a detailed list of questions.

Generally, these common behaviors are called "rape":

(1) Continuing sexual advances on a person after they have said "No" or "I don't want to". This includes encounters where a person says "No", but then stops resisting. A famous representation of this is from the second season of Mad Men, when Joan Holloway is raped by her fiance.

(2) Sexual advances on a person who is incapacitated (to me, this includes situations where a person "seems to want to have sex", but later passes out. "Seeming to want to have sex" is not in any way the same thing as actually wanting sexual intercourse).

(3) Sexual advances beyond previously-set boundaries (for example, if I say, "I don't want to have anal sex", and you "accidentally" shove it in my anus, that is rape or at least sexual assault).

There is a lot of "gray area" past these three, and you might call this area "coercive sex". These cases are rarely reported or prosecuted, so I think talking about incarceration is a little premature. If I say that I don't want to have sex, and my spouse rubs his penis against me until I give in, is that coercive sex? Absolutely. Some women would also call this rape, if it happened to them.

Oh no no no. This is completely ignoring the linked article, which essentially says: if you don't get the go ahead through body language, or if the woman in question is busy, talking to her places you #1 on the "Men who are about to rape me" list.

Your point is not in disagreement with mine. I am not ignoring the article. The point of the article is that approaching a random stranger who does not want to be approached has a vanishingly small chance of making you a new friend/fuck buddy. This is absolutely true. But that doesn't have to stop you from complimenting strangers, if you get some personal value out of complimenting strangers. If you don't want to be their friend or fuck buddy, and truly want to compliment them out of the goodness of your heart, why would you care if you got put on their shit list?
posted by muddgirl at 9:51 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

Durn,
I get the point. I once bought a shirt that said "mo money mo bitches" in huge gold letters because I thought it was the funniest thing ever. I never wore it, not even once, and I eventually threw it away. I just felt like the public wouldn't understand the genius of it, including the woman with the 7-year-old.
Sometimes really offensive humor can enlighten as well, though. Sarah Silverman's schitck to me was really all about seeing exactly how far a white person can go with using off-base words and stereotypes so long as they are just being "ironic".
posted by gagglezoomer at 9:52 AM on October 8, 2009

xmutex is ignoring what I'm saying, assuming I must be wrong

his logic is pretty airtight though, you were like yes and then he was all no
posted by Greg Nog at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2009 [33 favorites]

I think we could all do with a return to the "cougar" thread where, in dealing with women approaching men, we witnessed a similar cluelessness re: lack of interest. (and great umbrage at the thought that any attention could be unwanted attention)

Let's face it. It's not so easy when you're not just putting yourself out there and culling from the pack.

(but yes, entirely different situation re: safety and reasonable responses out of a concern for it; the cluelessness, however, is little different)

If you don't want to be their friend or fuck buddy, and truly want to compliment them out of the goodness of your heart, why would you care if you got put on their shit list?

Spoken like someone who hasn't had this happen. It sucks. For once, I don't think you can understand a man's perspective on this, because in order for you to be able to, you'd have to have complimented a guy innocently and have him go ballistic (would this ever happen with a guy?). I complimented a girl's hat on the bus a few months ago and the girl wearing it nearly engaged in Firestarter-style pyrotechnics. (But to be fair, I think she was insecure and thought that I was making fun of her)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

mostly because the dress people choose to wear at work is worn because they don't want to get attention for what they're wearing.

Do you work in a monastery or convent? Because if not, I assure you, you're wrong with regard to at least some of your coworkers.

With respect to the "street harassment" issue, I think not enough is being done to draw distinctions between different types of behavior. Cat-calling is one thing, I think it's tasteless and as a man I would never do it, but I think it's unreasonable to take guys whistling at you as anything particularly threatening. Similarly, a guy who checks a woman out, even in a protracted and classless way, is not threatening you. Now, a guy who follows you and stares at you or whistling is being threatening. Calling cat calls and staring harassment confuses the real problems.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:55 AM on October 8, 2009

Durn Bronzefist, while I'm sympathetic about the roundabout way some women go about talking to men, my actual point was that the automatic assumption that every interaction between a male and female is a potential romantic or sexual connection is inherently flawed.

I live in a world and remained determined to stay here where you can smile and be polite to others regardless of their race, gender, or anything else and that interaction can be taken at the surface level of politeness from one human being to another.

Now granted, often it seems that many other people in my world hasn't gotten the memo that I'm just being nice, but I keep hoping that one day, everyone else will see the beauty in it. And from time to time I'm fortunate enough to coax an unbeliever into my world and we can have a pleasant interaction just for the sake of interacting with another human, rather than a prelude to the exchange of bodily fluids.
posted by teleri025 at 9:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Rape t-shirts:

Clench all you want, it's still going in!

It's not rape if you shout "surprise!" (Currently unavailable. Either removed, or sold out. Either way, it was available for purchase.)

West Virginia: The hillbilly rape state!

Serial Rapist (with a smiley-face under the text! Aw! Cute!)

These three are from rottencotton.com:

Is it rape if she's dead?

Dead Girls Never Say No

My kid raped your honor student

And let's not ignore the unbelievably stupid women: No Means No (Well, maybe if I'm drunk.)

There are more. Do you need them?
posted by tzikeh at 9:56 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

gagglezoomer: yeah, I think you and I agree, and it's worth not letting "WHAT are these people thinking?!" not slip by without reasonable response, even if you wouldn't parade around like this yourself. But hell, I think I have a mostly-unworn "Illegitimi non carborundum" shirt in a drawer somewhere. Even that seemed a bit overly rude in most company.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:59 AM on October 8, 2009

I complimented a girl's hat on the bus a few months ago and the girl wearing it nearly engaged in Firestarter-style pyrotechnics. (But to be fair, I think she was insecure and thought that I was making fun of her)

So you got yelled at by a girl on the bus. Thank god she didn't follow you home in her car, screaming obscenities (happened to a friend of mine, when she refused to engage with a stranger on the train).

Seriously, there is a huge difference in threat levels here. Maybe the girl was having a bad day, and you made it worse. That's going to happen if you are going to ignore body language. I'm not saying it's a good idea to compliment people. But nothing we're going to say will stop you from doing so, so compliment away.
posted by muddgirl at 9:59 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

A few thoughts, though they've been partially addressed:

> Again, I must stress that we are not just talking about violent assualt with physical penetration. We are also talking about date rape. We are talking about coersive rape. We're talking about rape in the context of an emotionally abusive relationship. We are talking about taking advantaged of an inebriated state.

Just to be picky, wouldn't that mean that the number of dangerous men on the street is much lower? Yes, men in general will self-report rape (even less than usual) when the definition of "rape" is expanded from violent crime to what you described. Yes, those behaviors may be disturbingly prevalent, and yes, awareness must be built. I agree. But the author of the article is (fallaciously) construing that all of the "rapists" in that statistic are men on the street that she needs to be afraid of. It seems like she's misdirecting her fear: she should be working to maintain healthy relationships, look for warning signs, don't get completely wasted around strangers, etc.

I'm certainly not denying that women are fearful of strangers on the street, nor that it's much more dangerous to be walking around alone if you're a female. I'm just a bit tired of the notion that one in six men is willing to kidnap a woman off the street, hold her down, and rape her. Rape occurs much more frequently in much more complicated circumstances, where the moral barrier to action is much lower (inebriated, not reading signs well, etc.)

About the XKCD thing: Something has gone horribly wrong somewhere, and I think it has resulted in the horrific misinterpretation of a comic strip.

XKCD has a lot of themes, but one prominent one is social anxiety in general: over-thinking every move, never acting when one should, geekiness. The male in the XKCD strip is absolutely terrified of any sign of rejection from the netbook girl. His little day-mare is what he fears will happen if he's outgoing to anybody he's interested in conversing with. This subset of people (like netbook guy) will always err waay to the "no" side, always back off very quickly, always keep their mouth shut and their hands off. Randall isn't advocating harassment of busy women on trains, he's arguing that people are often islands, and a little bit of connection could brighten both of their days. I don't think the strip would be very different if the genders of the characters were swapped.

Hell, Randall sells shirts that say "JUST SHY/not antisocial/ you can talk to me!" I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the anxious, self-deprecating emotions of the male in the XKCD strip are healthy, and I don't think it would be a very happy world if every male deferred and waited for eye contact before speaking to a female.
posted by aaronbeekay at 10:00 AM on October 8, 2009 [34 favorites]

Spoken like someone who hasn't had this happen. It sucks. For once, I don't think you can understand a man's perspective on this, because in order for you to be able to, you'd have to have complimented a guy innocently and have him go ballistic

I do. I have had attractive young men assume I was hitting on them and give me the cold shoulder. It is very painful. I have gotten to the point that I avoid talking to attractive men, just so that I don't get my feelings hurt when they give me that horrified 'oh god go away tubby lady' look and speak in leaden monotones.

But the attractive young men are probably not afraid, brutish lump of flesh though I am, that I am going to follow them out of the store and beat them up and take that which is beyond price from them.
posted by winna at 10:01 AM on October 8, 2009 [30 favorites]

teleri025: oh hey, I'm right there with you, and I'll give up any and every "dating opportunity" for the normalization of pleasant conversation between strangers (which really does vary from place to place -- home town, here I come!). Of course, the assumption that every stranger who says boo is thinking of you as a "potential romantic or sexual connection" is a setup for perpetual fail, but that's where the linked article comes in; if you can't fix it, at least you can understand it.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:01 AM on October 8, 2009

Bulgaroktonos, I think whistling goes beyond tasteless to some degree because it asserts a sort of power over the other person, that of putting them on the spot. A lot of teasing of this sort happens between people who already know each other and sometimes it's overdone and hard to deal with--men on women or women on men--you're right that it's not "threatening" in a genuine way but I think it's sorta bullying.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 10:03 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

but I think it's unreasonable to take guys whistling at you as anything particularly threatening. Similarly, a guy who checks a woman out, even in a protracted and classless way, is not threatening you. Now, a guy who follows you and stares at you or whistling is being threatening. Calling cat calls and staring harassment confuses the real problems.

but again you are thinking like a man....I can tell you from personal experience that I DID feel threatened when a mob of construction workers stopped what they were doing and stared and whistled. I did not want to be the object of that kind of behavior I had no idea whether someone might chose to believe I wanted that kind of attention and follow me. Again, unless you have been on the receiving end of something like that, it's difficult to understand. I've had men come up to me and try to get something started, and when I try to shut them down, they say something like "well why did you smile, (or look, or breathe in my direction,) at me?" When I had no idea I was smiling at anyone!!
posted by brneyedgrl at 10:04 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

This is quite good. It's also all true. I still look over my shoulder constantly when walking down the street, whether I'm with people or alone. When I'm with people I do it less. When I'm alone and looking back every minute or so - and carrying my keys that way - I worry that I'm projecting a sense that I'm vulnerable precisely because I may seem paranoid. I even sometimes feel a little embarrassed (!) when someone walks by me and notices my keys in my hand (I only do the key thing at night in not-so-well-lighted areas). I'll sometimes smile and nod in an attempt to make them feel more comfortable. Hah! It's all about normalizing the situation and trying not to call too much attention to it. It's bizarre, I recognize it's a little bizarre, but I have to do it. And it's been a little over 20 years since I was violently assaulted at knifepoint, cut a little, and raped in a pretty vicious fashion. By a total stranger, not a guy I knew.

I don't feel paranoid, but it's always in the back of my mind that I wasn't careful enough one time, and something happened. I feel that if I "let" it happen again, it's my fault. It's not a very well-defined thing, (and no, it would never really be my fault, but the idea is there in my mind, perhaps as some sort of psychological safety measure that I think is wiser to hang onto than to let go of) but it's in my head on a little loop: fool me once, shame on you; fool my twice, well... You get used to it after a while. I'm sure it sounds paranoid to unfamiliar ears, but it's really not -- it's sort of inescapable once you've been mauled by a reject from the guy factory.

You're not all like him, and we know that. But those guys walk among you, and to ignore that fact could result in serious disaster for me. Sorry, dude. It's the way things are. I like most of you, but I'm also keenly aware that overtrusting relative strangers is just a bad, bad idea.

My best friend is a gay man (surprise, surprise) who thinks he totally gets what feeling vulnerable is. He feels put-upon by society, he's heard of gay men being beaten and killed for looking like him, and he says he's "really paranoid about being out alone at night." He says he totally gets it. Yet, during a discussion about how we're so similar like that, he also told me that he doesn't do a check on every guy (even every rednecklike guy) he passes on the street, cuz, it's like... daylight sometimes. When I told him this is where he and I take separate paths, he told me that being spooked all the time is unhealthy.

I agree. But again, I don't feel spooked all the time. It's not something I'm consciously thinking of all the time; it's more automatic than that, more like looking both ways when I cross a one-way street -- I'm not scared every time I do it, I just automatically check both directions, just in case there's a deviation from the norm. I feel like I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to do -- I'm being necessarily cautious. Because if I get raped again while I'm being really careful, then the fault lies squarely on the rapist. But if I get raped again because I eschewed the cabs and walked home late at night, defiantly, because I felt like I had a goddamned right to walk in my own (mostly very, very safe) neighborhood, then.... I share a little bit of the blame because I put myself in a position that I shouldn't have. It was unnecessary and counter to the way I generally operate. There's no escaping these feelings of personal responsibility. Nope, it'd never really be my fault, but try to tell me that once it happens... I doubt I'd see it any other way.

I think most females share a lot of this experience and conflict, but one reason we don't talk about it a lot is that it sounds a little defective when we do. If you knew me, you'd know I'm not a timid gal. I'm not so afraid to walk around at night that I don't do it -- I do it all the damn time -- but there's more to it than meets the eye. I'm not simply walking around; I'm walking around, unable to listen to my iPod, and I'm thinking about this shit the whole time. If you pass me and smile, you may get a smile back, or you may get a cold shoulder -- it depends mostly on where my mind is in the internal discussion I'm having at the time. It's not about you. It's about me.
posted by heyho at 10:08 AM on October 8, 2009 [77 favorites]

xmutex: "Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke?"

I've never seen a tee shirt making a rape joke. Anyone seen such a tee shirt?

Matter of fact, yes. For those of you fortunate enough to be ignorant, UFIA is fark-ese for "unsolicited finger in the anus." So the odds are low that a potential rape victim would get the joke, but I have seen t-shirts with rape jokes on them.
posted by workerant at 10:10 AM on October 8, 2009

Hey, here's a thought:

We've had a number of comments from guys who've in essence said in here that "but I don't mean any harm by it, and I think it's a shame that I have to curtail my behavior as a result."

We do too. But you know what a much more effective way to make things right would be, rather than nagging women to cut the nice guys some slack? Going after the guys you see NOT being nice. If you see a guy cat calling a woman, tell him he's being a dick. If one of your friends gets one of those "rape joke" t-shirts, tell him he's being a dick. If you see a guy try to pick a girl up and she looks uncomfortable and blows him off, and he turns to you all butthurt and says "women, huh?" Tell him that well, obviously she didn't want to talk to anyone and he just ignored her, so he was being a dick.

If you think about it, those guys are the ones who are ruining it for you, after all. Tell them that. They're the ones ruining it for you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:12 AM on October 8, 2009 [156 favorites]

brneyedgrl,

But, I'm not talking about whether you felt threatened, I'm talking about whether it is reasonable for you to feel threatened. Obviously, you're perfectly entitled to feel threatened whenever you want, but since the article is claiming that feeling threatened is justifiable and reasonable, we need more than merely the fact that you found the situation threatening.

You've told me that 1)Some guys whistled at you when you didn't want to be whistled at and 2)Some guy thought you smiled at him and was miffed when you didn't respond to his advances. That sounds like run of the mill bad human social interactions, not the actions of a would-be rapist. Moreover, as a man these sound like PRECISELY the sort of interactions I encounter on a day to day basis. There's not a sexual angle, but the dynamics are otherwise identical.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:12 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I agree with the general thrust of this article, but not some of the conclusions. This "system" may work for her and many other women, and this is something that men should be aware of, but in general it's a bit reactionary.

Specifically...

I read a lot. A whole lot. I do this in many places, and many conversations with both men and women have started while I was reading - "Hi. Sorry if I'm intruding, but is that a good book? I've heard good things about the author." Something like that. It usually doesn't bother me, and I usually end up talking to them. Then again, if I am looking surly, sure, heed this advice and Stay Away. That works for me, and seems like it wouldn't work for the author.

Appearance isn't all she makes it out to be. I was raped by a decidedly white-collar man, clean-cut and seemed pretty well-presented. The "appearance" section of this writeup is at odds with the rest of the article - "we have no idea who the rapists are, no matter what they look or seem like on the outside," and "we think the rapists can be found with a careful eye to appearance." No. I think the point is that, as she also says, you cannot tell.

Important to note that it's difficult to balance suspicion and self-protection with the hope of any social life. If I treated life like this article seems to suggest I do, I would have a very difficult time meeting people, and I would never, ever, trust anyone that I don't already know. The thing is that rape, like a lot of other bad things, happens - the only way to almost completely assure that I will not be raped, murdered or otherwise mistreated is to go into my room, lock the door, and never come back out. We all take risks on a daily basis, risks big and small, because we need to. Caution is good, but being over-cautious can be a Bad Thing. Balance!
posted by neewom at 10:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Robin Kestrel: There's nothing in this article that I disagree with, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What's next? "People of Color - How to Approach a White Person Without Looking Like a Mugger"?

You are completely reversing the power dynamic. This is not analogous.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

Great post -- I thought the article was a very clear description of the interaction, just good communication. No one's saying men can't understand -- the whole point of the piece is helping us get it.

This may be a goofy theory, but I think some of the overly peristent behavior is taught by romantic comedies. Pretty much every one has a woman who hates this guy, but he keeps persisting and eventually she can't resist his charm. For a socially maladjusted dude, the fact that these movies are aimed at (and successful with) women might be "proof" that you just have to keep pushing, they really want it.
posted by msalt at 10:15 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Then again, if I am looking surly, sure, heed this advice and Stay Away. That works for me, and seems like it wouldn't work for the author.

Actually, "if the woman is looking surly, heed this advice and Stay Away" is exactly what she's advocating.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:15 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

winna : If, when I am walking my somewhat unusual dog, someone walking by on the sidewalk says 'Is that a greyhound?' and I nod and walk on

Almost totally off topic, but kind of amusing; Dogs are one of those areas that make me a complete social misfit. Because of the number of pets I have, I'm always in pet stores for food, litter, salt, etc, and I'm constantly approaching people's dogs and cooing over how awesome the animal is.

More than once, I've completely missed the fact that person holding the dog was an attractive woman who got not even a single glance from me. I think that on occasion it takes them aback because they are probably used to having their dog be a way that guys approach them, whereas I barely notice they are even there.

I never mean to be rude by it, but come on... puppies! I once remarked that Angelina Jolie could be walking down the street in a bikini, but if she had a really cool boxer or bulldog or something, I probably wouldn't even realize it till I was a block or so away and my mind finally managed to flag me down with some important flag waving at the bigger picture that I was missing.

It's a good thing I'm married, because things like this demonstrate that I am kind of an idiot at times.
posted by quin at 10:16 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested
posted by Non Prosequitur at 10:17 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I once knew an Italian girl, not bad looking, who told me regarding the cat-calling "I was sick of it, but you know one time I replied to a guy who propositioned me: 'Okay. I live around the corner. Let's go.'" This guy went from macho to "ummm... uh..." and she walked off.

There's nothing more worthless than disingenuousness.
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 10:17 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

I feel a lot of sadness reading the linked article, the article about the xkcd comic, and a lot of the comments - particularly the loneliness expressed, in different ways, in the many of the comments.

For a self-aware species like us, I think we've been dealt an unlucky genetic hand in regards to our mating rituals. Humans have been able to negotiate sex on their own individual terms for only two generations, and only in certain countries, and only for certain individuals as sexual violence is still common. Our cultures haven't remotely had the time needed to create norms of behavior that work as well as possible for the largest number possible. Given how irrational and asymmetric the mating ritual is, it's no wonder that we're a big bag of dysfunction.

The narrative of male privilege could use more nuance. If women are feeling uncomfortable due to harassment and violence by men to the point where their narrative with the opposite sex is "rapist or not?", that means less sex, fewer relationships, more loneliness, and less happiness for everyone - as said harassment and violence is being conducted by a minority of men.

My previous point is a lesson that needs to be taught by men to other men - along with men shaming other men for bad behavior - as very few men will be willing to take that lesson from the feminist perspective. That's probably the next step for men on the path to something healthier than what we have today.
posted by MillMan at 10:22 AM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

To be less glib about it, muddgirl no, I don't think I missed the point. The linked article about the xkcd cartoon explicitly states that by presenting a scenario that suggests no more or less than a situation in which an unsolicited compliment would be well received, the cartoon's author is perpetuating rape culture. I think that's absurd. I think it's an absurd, overreaching assertion which straightforwardly dilutes the effectiveness of the completely fair and rational argument that women have every reason to behave guardedly in this culture and that thinking of oneself as a "nice guy" is no license to be tone deaf to a stranger's discomfort or reticence or to push for a connection where a connection is clearly not desired. I think the article about which this post is the subject makes this point fairly well. I think the Shapely Prose article on the xkcd cartoon does a rotten job of making this point because it carries its assertions to ridiculous extremes. Ironically I think the Sociological Images post about the xkcd cartoon which the Shapely Prose article is inspired by does a better job of making the point, which is using the fact that this cartoon could rationally resonate in a negative way with women to reinforce the message that women are frequently subjected to unwanted, negative, power-seeking interactions with men who think they couldn't possibly be making women uncomfortable because they are such nice, friendly geeks.

Ah, but it's pointless, and I feel like an idiot for even attempting this obtuse point, because this is one of those topics the bottom line of which (rape) is so grave and horrible that the suggestion that there could be any degree of nuance at any point along the rhetorical path can be seen as evidence of nothing except that I just don't "get" privilege, or the terrible places to which it can (and, enragingly, frequently does) lead. Of course I don't get privilege, how could I, I'm a man.
posted by nanojath at 10:22 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

Generally, though, I avoid commenting on women's clothes at work. No good can come of that: mostly because the dress people choose to wear at work is worn because they don't want to get attention for what they're wearing.

I'd venture to say that depends on the office working environment and one's co-workers. Women and men compliment each other in my office about what each other is wearing on a somewhat infrequent basis and that's never, ever mistaken for either an attempt to demean or a sexual overture. If I tell a coworker she looks nice today, or she does to me, that isn't sexual harassment. It's not a power issue, and each party understands that no one means it inappropriately, because we have established an office environment that is nonthreatening. However, many of us have known each other for years, and our professional / personal boundaries are quite clear. What is appropriate for one office may not be appropriate for another. And, if someone expressed discomfort, I'm sure it would stop immediately and an apology would be made.

And yes, some men and women most certainly will dress for attention. Personally, I don't give a damn what people wear, unless it clearly affects their work or someone elses. But I supervise staff, and so have had to have "the talk" with several employees who were dressed in manner that made their fellow co-workers uncomfortable.
posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on October 8, 2009

she should be working to maintain healthy relationships, look for warning signs, don't get completely wasted around strangers, etc.

Yeah, hey, it's her fault if she gets raped anyway! What was she thinking, going out to a bar like that! How dare she drink alcohol! And where the fuck is her burka?! That paranoid whore was asking for it!

I'm just a bit tired of the notion that one in six men is willing to kidnap a woman off the street, hold her down, and rape her. Rape occurs much more frequently in much more complicated circumstances, where the moral barrier to action is much lower

Damn it, I'm tired of it, too, aaronbeekay! (By the way, the estimate is 1 in 60 men committing rape, 1 in 6 women being the rape survivors.) But what's this about "complicated circumstances?" If she said "no" and you do it anyway, that's rape. If she was incapable of saying "no" (due to being underage, unconscious, or under the influence of drugs you slipped into her drink) that's rape, too. How is that complicated?
posted by philotes at 10:25 AM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

It doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not. Feelings aren't reasonable. One of the points of the article is that, unfortunately, women have to assume the worst because of past experience. It has been that way for me and for most women in our society. It ruins it for the good guys out there that we WANT to meet.
posted by brneyedgrl at 10:25 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

oinopaponton: Anyway, ladies, don't pretend to be deaf; it doesn't work.

Bizarrely, now I really want to know if your name is Heather and if you graduated in 2006.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:29 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

winna : If, when I am walking my somewhat unusual dog, someone walking by on the sidewalk says 'Is that a greyhound?' and I nod and walk on

Almost totally off topic, but kind of amusing; Dogs are one of those areas that make me a complete social misfit. Because of the number of pets I have, I'm always in pet stores for food, litter, salt, etc, and I'm constantly approaching people's dogs and cooing over how awesome the animal is.

More than once, I've completely missed the fact that person holding the dog was an attractive woman who got not even a single glance from me. I think that on occasion it takes them aback because they are probably used to having their dog be a way that guys approach them, whereas I barely notice they are even there.

Oh, no, the puppy people are totally not hitting on anyone in most cases as far as I can see. They are just all HAY PUPPIES! It's when they don't pay attention to me frantically looking at my watch to pepper me with questions that I become irritated. I love it when people love my dog. She is the best part of my life, what with her dainty princess airs and her astonishing ability to eat anything at all in less than two picoseconds.

The funny thing was that I got a dog partly so I could go walking and running outside and have a reason to be outside without talking to people, you know? And it wasn't supposed to make people talk to me. But having a greyhound is like having a prepaid pass to everyone talking to you all the time land, so my clever scheme backfired.
posted by winna at 10:29 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

If you see a guy try to pick a girl up and she looks uncomfortable and blows him off, and he turns to you all butthurt and says "women, huh?" Tell him that well, obviously she didn't want to talk to anyone and he just ignored her, so he was being a dick. If you think about it, those guys are the ones who are ruining it for you, after all. Tell them that. They're the ones ruining it for you.

Are you fucking kidding? Those guys are making me look like a goddamn prince. Should I take them out for drinks and give them advice too?

If the behaviour of other men is made to reflect upon me, then it's a problem with the person making ridiculous, unfair generalizations.
posted by esprit de l'escalier at 10:30 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Bulgaroktonos: I'm not talking about whether you felt threatened, I'm talking about whether it is reasonable for you to feel threatened.

Hey, Bulgaroktonos. You're being a dick.
posted by msalt at 10:30 AM on October 8, 2009 [39 favorites]

Are you fucking kidding? Those guys are making me look like a goddamn prince.

Not if you stand there watching them keep up their crap, you're not.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:32 AM on October 8, 2009 [35 favorites]

Bizarrely, now I really want to know if your name is Heather and if you graduated in 2006.

Nope and nope. Actually, I've found good old-fashioned lying to be the best way to deal with creepy guys who won't let up. It lets them feel like they've retained their power by getting some acknowledgment out of me, and I still get to feel (more or less) unviolated and like I have the real control.
posted by oinopaponton at 10:34 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

men truly have no idea what it's like to be a woman in this society.

I disagree strongly. Any man who's had a close relationship with an abused/assaulted woman; any man who has a wife, mother, sister, cousin, or daughter he cares about deeply; any man with any close relationship with a woman should have a very good idea of what it's like to be a woman, if he pays attention.

(You might as easily say no straight man knows what it's like to be gay; or no white man truly knows what it's like to be black; but I think those are all disingenuous generalities. We might not "know" in a 24/7 kinda way, but we can imagine. Our minds can grok it, especially if we are ever immersed in those "foreign" (female/gay/black/asian/etc) cultures.

from the article: But do you think about it all the time?

Actually, yes I do. Everytime I walk down the street and see a woman alone approaching me--almost every single time--I'll wonder what she thinks. If it's dark and I can tell from the way they are walking (or if I am walking around in a hooded sweatshirt or something), I will intentionally and obviously cross the street away from the woman.

I am one of the Nice Guys (tm) who feels a little like a rapist just for getting caught checking out a woman's ass on the checkout line. I've never stalked or harassed a woman, and not only do I take "no" for an answer, but I've often jumped the gun on presuming "no." Guys like me go out of our way to avoid being creepy, to the extent that we rarely approach strange women in the first place.

This (sorta) describes me and most of the men here, to some degree. I think it's a Golden Rule sort of situation: imagine you are that woman and act as you would want yourself to act if you were her (her, not your own ego in her body). If the woman looks, acts, talks like she likes being ogled/approached, go for it. If she's obviously not, don't.

Anyway, the article was freshman college level (no offense), but point 4 is the most incisive and perhaps instructive. I can't understand men who don't understand how desperate/dangerous that behavior appears to women. Maybe they don't care.

I talk to people all the time.

Me too, but I gotta agree with quin. It's become much easier to talk to strange woman since I started wearing a wedding ring. I'm sure there is a vast explanation there.

I'm pretty sure we should assume nothing and leave people alone and let them get where they are going.

That makes me sad. I'm no extrovert, but I actually like it when people come up and talk to me. People are crazy. And in the city there are so many interesting people to meet who are so different from me.

mostly because the dress people choose to wear at work is worn because they don't want to get attention for what they're wearing.

Depends on where and with whom you work. For me, yes. For some of the men and women in my office, definitely not.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:35 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

but again you are thinking like a man

Yeah.
posted by spaltavian at 10:36 AM on October 8, 2009

Are you fucking kidding? Those guys are making me look like a goddamn prince.

Not if you stand there watching them keep up their crap, you're not.

You will look way better to more women if actually SHOW them you are not a dick. with words. and actions.
posted by brneyedgrl at 10:37 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Actually, "if the woman is looking surly, heed this advice and Stay Away" is exactly what she's advocating.

Yeah, although the "surly-looking" isn't required, according to the article. If she's reading or otherwise not making eye contact, she's not to be approached, regardless of her binary "surly" state.
posted by neewom at 10:38 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

esprit de l'escalier: Are you fucking kidding? Those guys are making me look like a goddamn prince.

I'm pretty sure that if you said 'Hey, guys, quit being dicks' that not only makes the world a better place but makes you look 500% more princely than if you just walk by and pretend everything is status-quo.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:39 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Sorry -- internet went down.

winna -- sorry to hear you know what I'm talking about, but well said and I agree. I certainly never meant to equate any loss in pleasant conversation (though it is an almost shocking difference when you go somewhere more open) with a lack of physical safety.

I wish you well in your future people encounters.

And seriously, a greyhound?? awwww
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:40 AM on October 8, 2009

I complimented a girl's hat on the bus a few months ago and the girl wearing it nearly engaged in Firestarter-style pyrotechnics.

This is a situation where, once again, xkcd comes through. Under normal circumstances, we would think to ourselves, "this person is crazy." In the context of this discussion, the implication is, "women have gone crazy because she thinks that all men are out to rape her" and that's a mistake.

You ran into a crazy person on the bus. Happens all the time. Move on. You can't know what's going on inside someone's head.

mostly because the dress people choose to wear at work is worn because they don't want to get attention for what they're wearing.

Depends on where and with whom you work. For me, yes. For some of the men and women in my office, definitely not.

Maybe so, but the thing is that I don't know the which is which: who is just trying to dress professionally in order that her work be the center of attention, and who is proud of her new pinstriped slacks she wants to show off today? I find it best simply to assume the former.
posted by deanc at 10:40 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Men, in general, don't seem to understand what it is like to be potentially under attack at all times.

Imagine being in full Yankee's colors at a Mets home game, face paint and all. Now imagine this is the case anywhere you go, all day long. Difference is the Mets fans now don't wear colors, but they can still see yours. You have to try and figure out who the violent fans are based on cues and hunches, and even if you asked them directly they would lie because they want to get you alone and bet you up etc. So, when someone asks you to take a walk in the park, do they want to take a walk, or beat you up? You have to really get trust to an art form to make those kinds of decisions, and people still get fooled all the time, and that is why rape statistics are so bad.

I just made this up, but hope it helps someone.
posted by Antidisestablishmentarianist at 10:41 AM on October 8, 2009 [12 favorites]

oinopaponton: Actually, I've found good old-fashioned lying to be the best way to deal with creepy guys who won't let up. It lets them feel like they've retained their power by getting some acknowledgment out of me, and I still get to feel (more or less) unviolated and like I have the real control.

I'm a heterosexual middleclass white Protestant American male, so I realize that I'm on exactly the wrong side of every single goddam social inequality in the world, but in my own experience the best way to get through awkward or threatening or unwanted-social-imposition situations has always been to completely ignore the aggressor. I am in no way suggesting that this is the best way to behave for someone who is not a heterosexual middleclass white Protestant American male.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:45 AM on October 8, 2009

You know, this is pretty illustrative of the article in question -- I am clearly stating something, and xmutex is choosing to disregard my clearly-communicated statement because xmutex believes something else. xmutex is ignoring what I'm saying, assuming I must be wrong, even though I'm fucking saying quite clearly, that yes, I did see what I saw.

Again I'm just gonna reiterate what I believe to be a salient and correct counterpoint and say nope, you haven't.
posted by xmutex at 10:45 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

the thing is that I don't know the which is which: who is just trying to dress professionally in order that her work be the center of attention, and who is proud of her new pinstriped slacks she wants to show off today? I find it best simply to assume the former.

Rewrite this statement of yours thusly:

"the thing is that I don't know the which is which: who is trying to lure me into a situation where he can overpower me, and who is trying to strike up a genuine conversation? I find it safer simply to assume the latter."

...and you have the article.

Are the majority of guys safe? Yes. But -- the dangers of gambling and losing are severe and scary.

It's a different situation, but: it's kind of like the guys who mugged me when I was in college; one had a hand in his pocket showed me that he was "pointing a gun" at me through it. I briefly considered that "oh, bullshit, that's just his cocked finger," but then I realized, "then again, on the off chance I'm WRONG about that, I could end up dead. I'm not going to make that gamble." Sometimes, for the sake of your own safety, you DO have to assume the worst, even if the odds are in your favor -- because if you gamble wrong, the stakes are far too high.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:48 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Again I'm just gonna reiterate what I believe to be a salient and correct counterpoint and say nope, you haven't.

Okay, this is getting interesting. What is your evidence for this claim? I have stated that I have seen something with my own eyes. What is your evidence that I didn't see it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Men seem so adept at reading the body language of other men, and yet some pretend like it is a mystery to them... -muddgirl

Ouch. If that's the way this conversation is going to be had, then I agree with your prediction at the top of the thread (not a great idea, btw).

Men are better at reading men's signals. Women are better at reading women's.

If women were great at reading signals from men, there wouldn't be rampant paranoia, would there? You'd correctly suss out intentions and sort accordingly... -Durn Bronzefist

It is true that each sex is better at reading their own signals than the signals of the other sex. There is some research to support the idea that women are actually even better at reading signals overall compared to men.

Let us imagine that our threat-detection process is subject to error (we are human, after all) but not biased (the probability that our threat-detector will indicate that a person is a threat is the same as the probability that a randomly selected person from the population actually is a threat). The problem with this is that we will miss roughly as many true threats as we will generate false alarms. Missing a true threat can be catastrophic. Generating a false alarm may induce a feeling of rejection in a genuinely non-threatening person.

We could do better (experience better consequences on average) than unbiased detection, though. By biasing the threat-detection process towards oversensitivity, we hurt more non-threatening guys, but we don't miss as many true threats. That's an overall win. So how much should we bias our threat-detectors? Well, how bad is a missed threat compared to a false alarm? Missed threats are pretty bad- it pays to bias a lot. Hence the paranoia.
posted by Jpfed at 10:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

This is a thorny topic, and while I do agree some with aaronbeekay re: XKCD's themes, the piece linked to is a good one.

These dynamics play out that way and are really quite unfortunate. The other night, I was returning home via subway at 2am after getting in from a trip. Despite few passengers and lots of room on the benches in the car, this largeish man came and plopped down right in between myself and another woman, bumping me in the process. He sort of squished me a bit against the rail and then shortly after, proceeded to start falling asleep on me.

Now, granted, this is common enough in the NYC subway, but as soon as he chose that seating location, my suspicion went up. There was plenty of room elsewhere to fit his frame that wouldn't have involved plopping down on me. I changed seats soon after the falling asleep started taking place, but the whole thing still raised my guard. I also kind of feel bad at only muttering a low thanks to the other guy who held the door for me later, and for being on guard then too, with him behind me. I was walking home as fast as possible from my deserted little station at nearly 3am. Nothing is open and it's insanely dark, so I kind of hold my breath for the 7-minute walk. I used to take to buying Snapple before coming home late, and walk home with the full glass bottle held at the ready. I've also done the key thing.

I've been followed in broad daylight, in the supermarket, from the gym, on the bus, and elsewhere by guys who were either too shy or too relentless. Note to guys who want a date - don't follow a woman around. It's major major major creepy. I've been in an attempted mugging late at night, and other things that have to result in boundaries and a degree of suspicion.

It does suck. Like EmpressCallipygos said though, point out that stuff, don't be afraid. In some social situations, it is different, though it's also sucky when the guy you do have interest in getting to know turns out to have only been chatting you up for a potential date. I'm happily involved, but would like new friends. I'm also a friendly, warm, and smiley type, and that is just my nature, but I guess some people read that incorrectly.
posted by cmgonzalez at 10:51 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

gagglezoomer: They're funny

No, they're not.

because they show irreverence towards the taboo topic of date rape.

Which is not funny.

And because they're offensive.

Which is not funny.

I'm willing to bet that a substantial percentage of the college-age dudes who sport these tees would never actually commit the alluded-to felonies.

You would lose that bet.
posted by tzikeh at 10:53 AM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

Okay, this is getting interesting. What is your evidence for this claim? I have stated that I have seen something with my own eyes. What is your evidence that I didn't see it?

You know I can't really get into specifics but let's just say I have people and information and I have things that I know and this one of those things.
posted by xmutex at 10:53 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Dortmunder: You know in the past few weeks, I have both struck up a conversation with a young woman, and had another one strike up a conversation with me. Neither experience was particularly fraught with peril on either side,

Unless you are psychic, you cannot possibly know if the woman you struck up a conversation with felt frightened, even while engaging in conversation with you.

and no one got raped or otherwise traumatized.

Which, of course, makes it all okay.

I think most ~~people~~ men see it that way.

Which is the problem.
posted by tzikeh at 10:55 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

You know I can't really get into specifics but let's just say I have people and information and I have things that I know and this one of those things.

*eyeroll* Okay then. Run along and let us grownups talk, then, mkay?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:56 AM on October 8, 2009 [40 favorites]

It's part of a larger thing, which is that many people are just not very good at reading body language. It's not just guys approaching gals. I can be somewhere with what I think is a pretty good "NO, THANK YOU" stance turned up as far as it can go, and just when I think it's gotten to the point that a leaf might just land on the forcefield of non-interaction and slide off, someone will plow right through my lack of interest in dealing with people right now and begin jabbering at me. This can go on for several minutes, even while blocks of crystallized carbon dioxide wouldn't sublimate on my clavicles.

It's odd, because some groups of people know where each other are at right away, but then someone will stagger in and you have to wonder if it is some protocol mismatch between you and them, or if these people just stumble around this way their entire lives.
posted by adipocere at 10:57 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

If you see a guy cat calling a woman, tell him he's being a dick. If one of your friends gets one of those "rape joke" t-shirts, tell him he's being a dick. If you see a guy try to pick a girl up and she looks uncomfortable and blows him off, and he turns to you all butthurt and says "women, huh?" Tell him that well, obviously she didn't want to talk to anyone and he just ignored her, so he was being a dick

This. This a million times. This shouted from the fucking mountaintop.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on October 8, 2009 [22 favorites]

Listen, I'm sorry if I came across as a dick, but my problem is that being told that I can not ever understand how women are thinking, and that I have to deal with being treated like a rapist every time I speak to a woman. That is, quite frankly, a bullshit way to conduct a discussion. Interactions between men and women are a two way street, and when a woman claims that she feels threatened, it's not wrong to ask why, and try to explain why she shouldn't feel threatened.

Moving along, tzikeh, let me make sure I understand what you just wrote, does it basically boil down to:
Don't talk to people because you might scare them? Because that's definitely how it reads, and that's a pretty dismal attitude to have about the world.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:59 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

I'm unsure why you would feel this way because men face higher rates of physical assault and higher rates for physical and sexual assault combined.(3.4% vs 1.9% and 3.5% vs 2.1% in the last 12 months) We don't think about it too much till the possibility arises but most men are very familiar with the possibility of violent assault

Another thing about those studies for people over the age of 18, 76% of all rape is committed by an intimate partner. 14% of all rape is committed by intimate partners . So 2.0% of women have been raped by strangers and their is an incidence rate of about 1.2 per thousand. Doing a little bit of extrapolation using the same graphs in the actual study about 1.25 percent of men and 2.0 percent of women have been raped by a stranger. There is no order of magnitude difference when it comes to rape by strangers. Is it less safe for women to deal with strangers when it comes to sexual assault? Yes, but that is not where you find the majority of rapists. You find the majority of rapists in the men that women have chosen to sleep with.
posted by Rubbstone at 10:59 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

I don't even know if its useful to comment at this point, but my only reaction to the OP was "Right On!" It perfectly reflects my experience and mindset as a 30 year old female. I always doubted the 1 in 4 statistic, because in my experience it was more like 3 in 4 women who get raped. Three of my best friends in college were raped while in college. I was the 4th who wasn't.

So, yeah, I have always been a bit paranoid. Because the women I've known who were trusting and not paranoid got raped. I promise, it may be "no way to live," but I'm pretty happy I made it to my thirties without being a victim of sexual assault.

Not implying that women who have been victims failed in some respect. There's a lot of luck involved.
posted by threeturtles at 11:01 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: I think it's unreasonable to take guys whistling at you as anything particularly threatening.

I think it's unreasonable, based on all of the comments of yours that I've read in this thread, for you to even pretend to know what is or isn't threatening to a woman.

And again Bulgaroktonos: But, I'm not talking about whether you felt threatened, I'm talking about whether it is reasonable for you to feel threatened.

And you're the definitive source on whether, when a woman feels threatened, it is reasonable for her to feel that way.

Obviously, you're perfectly entitled to feel threatened whenever you want,

Thanks for the permission.

but since the article is claiming that feeling threatened is justifiable and reasonable, we need more than merely the fact that you found the situation threatening.

No, we really, really don't.

1) Some guys whistled at you when you didn't want to be whistled at and 2) Some guy thought you smiled at him and was miffed when you didn't respond to his advances. That sounds like run of the mill bad human social interactions, not the actions of a would-be rapist.

Oh, my God, I don't even know where to begin.

Moreover, as a man these sound like PRECISELY the sort of interactions I encounter on a day to day basis. There's not a sexual angle but the dynamics are otherwise identical.

The dynamics are as far from identical as you can possibly imagine. No, wait--you obviously can't imagine it.

Here's another link to the discussion I mentioned upthread. I suggest you read all 26 pages of comments before you say another word here.
posted by tzikeh at 11:01 AM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

my problem is that being told that I can not ever understand how women are thinking

Yes, people have said this...

and that I have to deal with being treated like a rapist every time I speak to a woman.

No, this is NOT what people are saying. They are saying, "deal with the fact that a woman is STILL TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE A RAPIST when you first talk to them." Then, the article goes on to tell you the things you can do in order to convince that woman that "see, I'm not a rapist".

Interactions between men and women are a two way street, and when a woman claims that she feels threatened, it's not wrong to ask why, and try to explain why she shouldn't feel threatened.

Similarly -- in the interest of this being a two-way street -- it's not wrong for a woman to EXPLAIN why she feels threatened, and for you to take that under advisement rather than continuing to insist "but I'M not like that!" That's precisely the original article's point - you very well may not be like that, but WE DON'T KNOW THAT when you first meet us, so the onus is on you to PROVE that you're not like that, and HEY, here's how!

Moving along, tzikeh, let me make sure I understand what you just wrote, does it basically boil down to:
Don't talk to people because you might scare them?

No. It is -- if someone doesn't want to talk to anybody, there is probably a very good reason for that, so RESPECT THEIR PRIVACY if that's what they want. Because ignoring their attempts to keep to themselves is PRECISELY how you WILL scare them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:07 AM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Just to be picky, wouldn't that mean that the number of dangerous men on the street is much lower? Yes, men in general will self-report rape (even less than usual) when the definition of "rape" is expanded from violent crime to what you described. Yes, those behaviors may be disturbingly prevalent, and yes, awareness must be built. I agree. But the author of the article is (fallaciously) construing that all of the "rapists" in that statistic are men on the street that she needs to be afraid of. It seems like she's misdirecting her fear: she should be working to maintain healthy relationships, look for warning signs, don't get completely wasted around strangers, etc.

You completely missed the point of the article. She wasn't saying "I'm afraid all men are going to grab me off the street and rape me." She was saying "Most of the time I don't particularly feel like getting to know strangers on the street because I'm trying to get shit done, and that if you're ignoring the signals I'm sending saying I want to be left alone, than there's no way I'm going to want to get to know you, because you ignoring my personal boundaries now indicates you'll happily ignore them later when I'm saying no to your sexual advances." It's not actually that hard to figure out if you actually read the article and don't immediately jump to post-feminist male-resentment conclusions about what she's saying.
posted by Caduceus at 11:08 AM on October 8, 2009 [31 favorites]

They're funny because they show irreverence towards the taboo topic of date rape.

It's taboo for a reason. Victims of rape are referred to as "survivors" for a reason. Sexual assault is a vicious, awful, disgusting, scarring crime.

And because they're offensive. I'm willing to bet that a substantial percentage of the college-age dudes who sport these tees would never actually commit the alluded-to felonies. Thus, there is a level of ironic humor as well.

Sure, they're just happy-go-lucky folks who think it's high comedy to joke about violating women.

Bullshit. Fuck that noise. Irony doesn't make rape funny. Most taboos are based on fear. When that fear is based on a serious societal problem and is therefore wholly justified, then being ironic about it is not funny.

Its just that I think that's where the humor is coming from and so I'm trying to make an earnest explanation.

The people who think rape jokes are humor are the problem.
posted by zarq at 11:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: tzikeh, let me make sure I understand what you just wrote, does it basically boil down to: Don't talk to people because you might scare them? Because that's definitely how it reads, and that's a pretty dismal attitude to have about the world.

That's not at all what I've said. There is nothing in what I've written here that says "don't talk to people." I am saying that you should be aware, or try to be aware, or learn to be aware of the world that women live in, how it is entirely different from yours, how you will never truly understand it, and that you should read, and listen to, and study as much as you can about the topic, so that when you do talk to women, you will have an idea of the myriad of thoughts, appraisals, and emotions that are likely going through her mind the moment you begin to strike up a conversation. Right now, you don't, and it appears that you're being purposefully obtuse about it in order that your thoughts on the matter "win" the discussion, rather than understanding that the bird is a more reliable source of information about birds than the bird book. In other words, listen to the women here without responding with how you think they're wrong.

And I'm deadly serious about reading that discussion I've linked to. All of it. A lot of men who have read it have learned a lot about what they didn't know that they didn't know.
posted by tzikeh at 11:10 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Actually, I've found good old-fashioned lying to be the best way to deal with creepy guys who won't let up. It lets them feel like they've retained their power by getting some acknowledgment out of me, and I still get to feel (more or less) unviolated and like I have the real control.

I do this too in those cases where ignoring them won't do the trick and I'm stuck, like on a bus. I try to just ignore these types as often as possible if I can keep moving. For those saying ignoring them is best, I've been followed by guys I've ignored before though. Sometimes it doesn't work.

A couple of weeks ago, one tried to talk to me, but I ignored him. A few minutes later, I noticed he had followed me to the 7-11 and basically tooled around in there (we were the only customers) pretending to not know much English and asking crazy questions while ordering hot dogs and buying time. So there I was, feeling like prey. If I left before him, he'd probably follow me home. So I waited. Eventually, he left and I waited a few minutes and paid. He was a block or two off when I left and I looked over my shoulder the whole walk home.
posted by cmgonzalez at 11:12 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Or, what tzikeh said.
posted by zarq at 11:13 AM on October 8, 2009

What Rubbstone said. I have no gripe with the author's main points, but she could have made them without describing men as unconcerned about their own chances of being victimized by violent crime. She's simply incorrect that men don't worry about crime on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure some men don't worry about it, but that doesn't mean they have the advantages -- that just means they're not vigilant about real threats. None of this takes away from her description of the threats women face. I wish she had just focused on those, and not tried to airbrush the situation for the other half of the population.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:13 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

and no one got raped or otherwise traumatized.

tzikeh: Which, of course, makes it all okay.

...

... ...

Yeah, there's really nowhere to go with you, is there?

listen to the women

How about we listen to each other? No? No good? Alright then. Laters.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 11:15 AM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

None of this takes away from her description of the threats women face. I wish she had just focused on those, and not tried to airbrush the situation for the other half of the population.

Arguably, though, the men who have a level of self-awareness and the habit of being observant of others' body language are probably not the same men who have difficulty in this area.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:16 AM on October 8, 2009

I'm quite conscious of how I behave with women in public, and go out of my way to respect obvious boundaries. I remember one moment many years ago getting lost in a northeast college town, changing direction on a deserted street after realizing I was going the wrong way, and having the young woman walking behind me think I was coming up to her and seeing her reaction. That was a sad moment, as I always try to give women walking alone a wide berth, just to make sure she understands I'm not a threat.

And then there is the reality of being a man in public, which isn't talked about too much. Men understand that they could be subjected to violence from other men at any time. Many things could trigger a violent confrontation, especially when one is outnumbered or alcohol is involved. I'm a big guy and can probably defend myself, but there are lots of situations where my size wouldn't matter. I get scared, too.
posted by tranquileye at 11:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

You know, this is pretty illustrative of the article in question -- I am clearly stating something, and xmutex is choosing to disregard my clearly-communicated statement because xmutex believes something else. xmutex is ignoring what I'm saying, assuming I must be wrong, even though I'm fucking saying quite clearly, that yes, I did see what I saw.

Again I'm just gonna reiterate what I believe to be a salient and correct counterpoint and say nope, you haven't.

Are you fucking kidding me? That bullshit right there is exactly why we're having this whole conversation. You're being a dick.
posted by Caduceus at 11:18 AM on October 8, 2009 [37 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: With respect to the "street harassment" issue, I think not enough is being done to draw distinctions between different types of behavior. Cat-calling is one thing, I think it's tasteless and as a man I would never do it, but I think it's unreasonable to take guys whistling at you as anything particularly threatening. Similarly, a guy who checks a woman out, even in a protracted and classless way, is not threatening you. Now, a guy who follows you and stares at you or whistling is being threatening. Calling cat calls and staring harassment confuses the real problems.

I totally hear where you're coming from. Like you, I think cat calls are tasteless and don't ever do it. Even so, I've known plenty of dudes who cat call all the time. I'm sure you do too--I'm sure every guy does. As such, we're aware that most guys who cat call are realistic enough to realize that whistling at a woman more than likely will not lead them to getting laid. For the most part, they see it as harmless fun. Why should harmless fun seem threatening?

That being said, take a another look over the stories that women are telling in this thread. winna having a screaming dude call her an uppity bitch just because she's not interested. oinopaponton being interrogated on her way to take the GRE (as if getting ready to take the GRE wasn't stressful enough already).

I don't know about you, but if I or someone close to me has a particularly bad experience with a member of a group, it tends to color my perception of the group. As a Latino, I have a lot of family members who have had unjustifiably bad experiences with the cops. Every Latino I know has a family member with a terrifying run-in with the cops story, at the very least. As a result, I don't trust the cops. And yes, I know that most cops are decent people with tough jobs who are earnestly trying their best to contribute to the saftey of the community, but when you know as many people as I do who have had cops pull guns on them for Driving While Brown, well, you tend to be leery of the cops. I know we're supposed to be in some magical post-racial society now, but trust me dude, that shit is still disturbingly common.

On the subject at hand, I think its the "disturbingly common" aspect is the part that we men have a hard time grasping. And sexual assault truly is disturbingly common. For chirssakes, we were just over 100 comments in before we got a story about someone being violently raped (thank you so much for sharing, heyho). And while only a small fraction of the population ever has to go through such a terrible experience, I'll bet that most woman reading this has a story about a time a guy gave them a real scare. Shit, just a few weeks ago a friend of mine had to literally run away from a crazy guy on the street. Fortunately for her, she spent the summer training for a marathon.

Thanks to all who have already shared their stories. Ladies, I encourage you to continue sharing. A lot of us guys have no idea how common this shit really is.
posted by joedan at 11:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [35 favorites]

Caduceus, see, without hardly trying you just went up in points on my man-o-meter.
posted by brneyedgrl at 11:23 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

so the onus is on you to PROVE that you're not like that, and HEY, here's how!

And the fact that you feel I'm under an obligation to prove I'm not a rapist simply because I'm a man is a problem, a major problem. Men assault men all the time, in fact, they assault men more often they assault women, but I don't assume that all men are going to assault men. The potential harm for being wrong is also quite high, but I recognize that treating every man around me as a, first and foremost, a potential attacker is not appropriate. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect women to treat me the same way.

Here's what you said, tzikeh:
1)The fact that someone talked to you and didn't seem afraid does not mean they weren't afraid of you.

2)The fact that you TALKED to another person, and did nothing else does not make it "okay" to talk to them.

3)The fact that you think it's okay to TALK to another person is part of the problem.

If this is what you think, the only logical way to order your life is to never talk to anyone else ever. After all, they might feel threatened, and you might not know. The fact that they returned your conversation is obviously not enough, and because people lie when they feel threatened asking them would be a terrible source of information. The only winning move is not to play.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:24 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

"That is, quite frankly, a bullshit way to conduct a discussion. Interactions between men and women are a two way street, and when a woman claims that she feels threatened, it's not wrong to ask why, and try to explain why she shouldn't feel threatened."

Dude, c'mon. First off, it's not women's fault that they feel threatened. Second, "OK, lil' darlin', just lemme explain why exactly your purdy little head doesn't need to be filled with all them nasty thoughts about me" is, like, the most condescending bullshit thing you can do. Can you not see how presumptuous and privileged you're coming across as?
posted by klangklangston at 11:25 AM on October 8, 2009 [14 favorites]

xmutex: You know I can't really get into specifics but let's just say I have people and information and I have things that I know and this one of those things.

Stop trolling this thread, please. You've been here long enough to know better. Oh, and if you call someone here a liar in the future, have the balls to back it up.
posted by zarq at 11:26 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

The article has the familiar stench of paranoid misandry, ever so popular with certain female bloggers.

Next.
posted by borgesian at 11:27 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Yeah, if xmutex has actual, real evidence, then zie needs to step up and produce it or stop being such an asshole.
posted by muddgirl at 11:29 AM on October 8, 2009

esprit de l'escalier: "I once knew an Italian girl, not bad looking, who told me regarding the cat-calling "I was sick of it, but you know one time I replied to a guy who propositioned me: 'Okay. I live around the corner. Let's go.'" This guy went from macho to "ummm... uh..." and she walked off.

There's nothing more worthless than disingenuousness."

I once responded with a puzzled "Do you think I'm a prostitute?" The man replied "Um... not as such, no." I pointed out I was wearing running shoes, jeans, and a sweatshirt, and that I didn't think that was how prostitutes dressed. By this point the man was really uncomfortable. Neener neener to him.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:34 AM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

It may not be appropriate for you to treat all cat calls as being threatening but some women do....and your opinion that it isn't a threat doesn't make it any less of one to some women. What the hell is wrong with you.
posted by brneyedgrl at 11:34 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

> I read the article and am saddened that this woman feels this way on a daily basis, but I also don't think she speaks for all women.

You are not a woman, so you don't speak for any women. But congratulations for presenting a sterling specimen of Male Answer Syndrome. "Hi, I'm not a woman but I know what women should think!"

Great post, great link, and despite the occasional glitches in the thread there's only one guy who's being a complete unredeemable dick (naming no names) and in general it's going pretty well, so I'm tentatively feeling like MeFi's come a long way in the last couple of years.
posted by languagehat at 11:34 AM on October 8, 2009 [29 favorites]

zarq,

I didn't say YOU or anyone else had to find these things funny. I don't like the fucking Capitol Steps or Carlos Mencia or, indeed, rape humor, but I don't tell people "no its not funny". I was just trying to explain in an objective fashion why that stuff is funny TO SOME PEOPLE. It's a pretty poor argument imo to respond to my explanation with "no it's not". A lot of people find things that offend other people funny. In fact, you are actually part of the reason that these t-shirts are funny to people... because they offend you. So chill out, dude, and next time you see a fat guy wearing a shirt that says "I got this fat from eating so much pussy" just think of lolcats or something.
posted by gagglezoomer at 11:35 AM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

shakespeherian: You are completely reversing the power dynamic. This is not analogous.

Here's the analogy: Group A mistrusts/fears Group B in an isolated one-on-one situation, with some stats to back it up. Member of Group A writes a guide to Group B admonishing them and advising on how not to be so threatening in that setting. The power dynamic is the same for that scenario; the white person's advantages in society are no shield from a potential gun, or knife, or physical violence.

Group B understands where Group A is coming from, but is a little miffed at being tarred with the "potential mugger" brush, and at how the situation is portrayed in an overly simplistic way as arising from their lack of respect of the fears of Group A; it's framed as solely Group B's challenge to modify their behavior. Except that "being threatening" boils down to coming anywhere near Group A at all outside of a well-attended, well-lit public setting.

That's what leaves the bad taste, what takes it out of the realm of "let's all try to be more respectful and understanding of one another"... the inevitable conflating any undesired approach with being a step down the road to a mugging... e.g., Group B might be going to ask for the time, but Group A-- already put on alert by Group B's appearance -- assumes this is going to be a request for money, and after that comes the mugging because these people don't take no for answer, amirite. Therefore, Group B is in the wrong for even thinking about approaching Group A in the first place. Didn't they notice Group A avoiding eye contact and crossing to the other side of the street?
posted by Robin Kestrel at 11:37 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Women are poor, helpless victims struggling mightily but failingly in a world surrounded by men, who are fearless evil scary rapists.

This is what I learned on Metafilter today.

A couple of weeks ago, one tried to talk to me, but I ignored him. A few minutes later, I noticed he had followed me to the 7-11 and basically tooled around in there (we were the only customers) pretending to not know much English and asking crazy questions while ordering hot dogs and buying time. So there I was, feeling like prey. If I left before him, he'd probably follow me home. So I waited. Eventually, he left and I waited a few minutes and paid. He was a block or two off when I left and I looked over my shoulder the whole walk home.

You handled it like a victim, and walked away feeling like a victim.
posted by coolguymichael at 11:39 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

> so the onus is on you to PROVE that you're not like that, and HEY, here's how!

And the fact that you feel I'm under an obligation to prove I'm not a rapist simply because I'm a man is a problem, a major problem.

Yes, it is a problem. I agree.

But it is not a problem women started. It is a problem other men started. So blaming women for a problem started by other men is not going to solve things.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:40 AM on October 8, 2009 [22 favorites]

borgesian: "The article has the familiar stench of paranoid misandry, ever so popular with certain female bloggers."

Ooh! I'm a female blogger! Do you mean me?
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:40 AM on October 8, 2009

joedan, I completely agree, which is why I'm finding it funny that everyone accusing me of being "willfully obtuse" ignored the fact that my first post was precisely about drawing a line between cat calling, and yelling in a dangerous and threatening way. Because cat calling only rarely escalates into the second group, it's not appropriate to treat all cat calling as threatening. Any more than it would be to treat every time someone ask you for a dollar as a robbery attempt, even though it sometimes escalates like that.

Would you, like, read what you're writing? If you're not being willfully obtuse, you're just being dumb. Seriously, who the hell are you to tell other people when it is or is not appropriate to feel threatened? How is it that you think you have the right to dictate how others feel? The fact that you're still making this argument is exactly why we're having this discussion in the first place. You're clearly demonstrating that you have no clue what it's like to be a woman or what they go through, which is sad considering just how many examples there have been in this thread alone.

The article has the familiar stench of paranoid misandry, ever so popular with certain female bloggers.

Next.

This poster has the familiar stench of misogynistic jackass, ever so popular with idiots who are incapable of empathy. Seriously, dude, three comments since 2005, and that was your third? What the fuck?
posted by Caduceus at 11:40 AM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

borgesian: The article has the familiar stench of paranoid misandry, ever so popular with certain female bloggers.

Next.

Look, I don't know you, so I don't want to go calling you names or anything, but comments like this one come across not only as condescending and dismissive, but as extremely misogynistic and uncaring. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but do try harder not to be a calloused asshole.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:41 AM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

wow, that opens up a whole new subject about how women are trained from birth to BE victims. "Don't make waves", "Don't make a scene", "don't strike back, because then he'll beat the crap out of you"!! I'm sure someone more knowledgable than me can enlighten you further.
posted by brneyedgrl at 11:42 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

And upon preview, to coolguymichael:

>A couple of weeks ago, one tried to talk to me, but I ignored him. A few minutes later, I noticed he had followed me to the 7-11 and basically tooled around in there (we were the only customers) pretending to not know much English and asking crazy questions while ordering hot dogs and buying time. So there I was, feeling like prey. If I left before him, he'd probably follow me home. So I waited. Eventually, he left and I waited a few minutes and paid. He was a block or two off when I left and I looked over my shoulder the whole walk home.

You handled it like a victim, and walked away feeling like a victim.

The problem there, though, is that she had no way of knowing whether or not, if she told the guy "buzz off," he may have escalated to violence. Then she really would have been a victim, of something much more serious.

Yeahyeah suresure, he probably wouldn't have done it because most guys don't, whatever. But the stakes, as I've said before, are sometimes too high for that kind of gamble, even if the odds are in your favor.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:42 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

coolguymichael: You handled it like a victim, and walked away feeling like a victim.

You are blaming a victim. Stop.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:43 AM on October 8, 2009 [55 favorites]

"You handled it like a victim, and walked away feeling like a victim."

Dude, what the fuck is your problem? You've acted like a supreme asshole in both this thread and the OKCupid one, and I know from assholes.
posted by klangklangston at 11:44 AM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

...and having the young woman walking behind me think I was coming up to her and seeing her reaction. That was a sad moment, as I always try to give women walking alone a wide berth, just to make sure she understands I'm not a threat.

We see you do that, and we sort of quietly love you for it. The sadness you feel is shared by us when we see you move over out of a sense of chivalry. It makes us similarly sad that we know we'll never walk up to you and thank you because to acknowledge it aloud is too weird. But we see you.

We hope you talk about it with other men, as has been said a lot in this thread. You and I don't have to have the discussion because I know you already know. And I can't have the discussion with a hipper-than-thou guy who thinks rape jokes can be funny because they're so fucking ironically fucking funny.

So, on top of giving me a wide berth, I also need you to do my talking for me. Men listen to what other men say without all the background noise telling him that women overreact to things all the time. You can't stop at just moving over; we need you to talk, too. And we might not ever thank you personally, but we suspect you aren't the kind of guy who needs to be patted on the back. Thanks in advance, yo.
posted by heyho at 11:46 AM on October 8, 2009 [126 favorites]

Oh no no no. This is completely ignoring the linked article, which essentially says: if you don't get the go ahead through body language, or if the woman in question is busy, talking to her places you #1 on the "Men who are about to rape me" list.

That's not what the article says at all. It says that if you are trying to meet someone by picking them up on the street, then the number one way to guarantee they will not want to get to know you further is by ignoring them when they say no, because they figure that there's no reason to allow someone into their lives who starts out by ignoring their boundaries.
posted by jeather at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2009

brneyedgrl, I'm saying that I don't see how a cat call is a threat, because in my analogous experience that type of behavior is not threatening. All you've given me is "Some women feel that it is." That's fine for what it's worth, but it doesn't explain to me WHY. What I've inferred is that some women find cat calls threatening because they think they are prelude to more harmful conduct. That also doesn't jive with me experiences of men, and of cat calling, so I'm left wondering why women find them threatening.

Why is it my business to understand why certain people find certain behaviors threatening? Because some of these people might find MY behaviors threatening(not cat calling, but something), and I have to live in the world that fear creates. I'm not trying to dictate how anyone else feels, I'm just trying to explain why I believe the being afraid me is not reasonable. Now, obviously people will act in ways that don't seem rational to me, but I'm not really able to alter my behavior because of it unless they provide me with an explanation that I can understand.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:50 AM on October 8, 2009

This is what I learned on Metafilter today.

If that's what think you learned, you obviously learned nothing. Congratulations.
posted by blucevalo at 11:50 AM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Because cat calling only rarely escalates into the second group, it's not appropriate to treat all cat calling as threatening.

Catcalling sexually objectifies women, by solely emphasizing their physical attributes and attractiveness while de-emphasizing them as a person who has feelings and emotions. It is a form of sexism and perhaps dehumanization.

In general, sexism creates an environment in which abuse is acceptable behavior. That's why catcalling is threatening. At best, it is a disrespectful act. At worst, it is a sign of a potential abuser.
posted by zarq at 11:51 AM on October 8, 2009 [54 favorites]

Women are poor, helpless victims struggling mightily but failingly in a world surrounded by men, who are fearless evil scary rapists.

This is what I learned on Metafilter today.

Wow. Your reading comprehension skills are for shit. You should work on that.
posted by rtha at 11:52 AM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

A tip of the hat to the women of Metafilter for once again dropping some serious science on a contentious and misunderstood issue.

And xmutex, your trolling is ugly.
posted by barrett caulk at 11:56 AM on October 8, 2009

B, I have explained to you why...."why" is because in my experience some men do not pick up on negative cues. So how do I know that one of those construction guys, wouldn't think "hey, she's kinda enjoying this" and follow me. When really I want to find a hole to crawl in to and out of the sight of strangers. Because not only do the construction guys make me an object to oogle at but they also bring unwanted attention from people in the immediate area, which I also DON'T want, and how do I know that one of the crowd in the area isn't going to say to himself "hey, she's kinda enjoying this" and follow me, does it happen everytime or even very often? probably not, but it happens and it will happen again. It's a POTENTIAL threat, and that's what women have to guard against....how can you not get that B.?
posted by brneyedgrl at 11:57 AM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

but my problem is that being told that I can not ever understand how women are thinking, and that I have to deal with being treated like a rapist every time I speak to a woman.

Speaking as big scary dude (this is what I've been told), get over it. Women are justified in being cautious of interacting with males (not just strangers). Can this sometimes go overboard? Sure, no question, but overreaction is understandable considering how often women are targets for violence.

You can't completely control how another person feels about you. Your only solution is to don't be a dick and not make it all about youyouyouou and how you feel. Don't be creepy dude and most women will recognize that and if they don't, that's their choice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:58 AM on October 8, 2009 [13 favorites]

shakespeherian: You are blaming a victim. Stop.

Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, there was actually no "victim" in the story, because nothing happened. A guy tried to talk to her, they both went into the same store and he acted werid, then left. Uncomfrotable situation, certainly, and I understand the concern and caution. But we can't expand "victim" to mean, essentially, anything.
posted by spaltavian at 12:01 PM on October 8, 2009

I'm saying that I don't see how a cat call is a threat, because in my analogous experience that type of behavior is not threatening. All you've given me is "Some women feel that it is." That's fine for what it's worth, but it doesn't explain to me WHY. What I've inferred is that some women find cat calls threatening because they think they are prelude to more harmful conduct. That also doesn't jive with me experiences of men, and of cat calling, so I'm left wondering why women find them threatening.

It may not jive with your experiences of catcalling. But it does jive with many WOMENS' experiences of catcalling.

Think of it like road rage. Say you see a guy try to cut you off, but you keep him from doing it, and you give him a little look as you're pulling in to traffic ahead of him. Now imagine that that sets him off on a full-on spazz where he follows you through ten blocks of traffic, honking his horn and tailgating you and angrily gesturing, and even goes so far as to follow you to where you were going and gets out of his car and gets toe-to-toe with you and screams at you, all over that one look you gave him.

Now imagine that that wasn't the only time that kind of thing happened. Maybe it doesn't happen EVERY time you give some jackass a dirty look in traffic, but imagine that it happened about ten times, where some jackass went on a tantrum because you looked at him funny in traffic and ended up going road-rage on you.

Sure, intellectually you may still be aware that not everyone is going to blow their stack at you in traffic -- but can you honestly say you wouldn't be a little less likely to give people in traffic a dirty look any more, after having seen a few instances of insane road rage directed at you?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:02 PM on October 8, 2009 [14 favorites]

"Don't make waves", "Don't make a scene", "don't strike back, because then he'll beat the crap out of you"!!

There are plenty of situations where this is perfectly rational. Single minded focus on "winning" a given social interaction, particularly when a possible consequence of escalation is violence, can be harmful. Like EmpressCallipygos says, sometimes the consequence isn't worth the risk, and what's the payoff? cmgonzalez handled the situation as well as could be expected under the circumstances.
posted by deanc at 12:02 PM on October 8, 2009

Me: listen to the women

Durn Bronzefist: How about we listen to each other? No? No good? Alright then. Laters.

No. No good. Not about this. I'm deadly serious. This is a one of the main problems of the conversation we're having here, and of any conversation between (some) men and (most) women about rape and rape culture.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us. Nothing you have to say has any bearing on how we have no choice but to live our lives in a world you don't live in. You might be the best guy ever--a saint of a human being--but nothing you say to us on this topic makes any kind of difference in our experiences in a culture in which misogyny is so unbelievably ingrained that men (and some women) don't know or see about 90% of it until they bother to look really, really closely. Again, I recommend this discussion.

Men don't get a pass on feeling uncomfortable in this conversation. You should feel uncomfortable. When confronted with an involved and complex discussion of racism, I learned very quickly that I did not have the right to counter what POCs were saying with "but but but" and "I'm not like that" and "well, but you should also listen to me--shouldn't we listen to each other, after all?" That's the classic derail in which I try to make their discussion about their lives into a discussion about me, which is what you and several others here are trying to do. What I had the right to do was shut up and listen to them, and ask questions about what I didn't understand, so that I could learn about their world--a world that I don't live in. You can bet your ass that I was uncomfortable. But I also became so much more aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society--so much more than I could possibly have imagined. Beyond anything I might have thought I'd known. So yeah, I don't have to listen to you about your thoughts about where I live, because You Don't Live Here.

You don't want to face the fact that you quite probably don't understand what we're talking about, and would rather be glib or smug? Nothing we can do about that, but that makes you a great big part of the problem. You clearly have no desire to do the work required to gain serious understanding, because then you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

But it is obvious that you would rather not entertain the notion that you might learn things that will make you uncomfortable--that, or you truly believe that women should have to listen to what men have to say about women's lives in a discussion of something only women can, and do, experience. If that's the case, as you say, laters.
posted by tzikeh at 12:05 PM on October 8, 2009 [64 favorites]

Think of it like road rage. Say you see a guy try to cut you off, but you keep him from doing it, and you give him a little look as you're pulling in to traffic ahead of him. Now imagine that that sets him off on a full-on spazz where he follows you through ten blocks of traffic, honking his horn and tailgating you and angrily gesturing, and even goes so far as to follow you to where you were going and gets out of his car and gets toe-to-toe with you and screams at you, all over that one look you gave him.

Wow, that guy sounds like a total asshole! I'm glad I don't drive.
posted by gagglezoomer at 12:05 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's a pretty poor argument imo to respond to my explanation with "no it's not".

Except... that's not what I said. That's what tzikeh said.

I said: Irony doesn't make rape funny. Most taboos are based on fear. When that fear is based on a serious societal problem and is therefore wholly justified, then being ironic about it is not funny.

If you disagree or think I'm being unnecessarily self-righteous, then by all means do so. But I don't have to accept your dismissive explanation, either.

A lot of people find things that offend other people funny. In fact, you are actually part of the reason that these t-shirts are funny to people... because they offend you.

I understand what shock value humor is, thank you.

So chill out, dude, and next time you see a fat guy wearing a shirt that says "I got this fat from eating so much pussy" just think of lolcats or something.

I'm sorry, but did you just metaphorically suggest that I lay back and enjoy it? In a thread about rape?

Yeah, we're done here.
posted by zarq at 12:08 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Women are poor, helpless victims struggling mightily but failingly in a world surrounded by men, who are fearless evil scary rapists.

*jerks thumb at this comment*

You all saw this ridiculous fucking honk of nonsense, right? Speaking as a guy who has plenty of guy friends, I would like to tell all the women here: Goddamn it, we think this shit is idiotic and dangerous too. I'd tell any friend of mine who said something like this the same fucking thing and to cut it the fuck out. It's goddamn heartbreaking that this is actually what someone claims to have taken away from all this. It's slightly encouraging that the overwhelming majority of the other comments have been thoughtful and reasoned.
posted by Skot at 12:09 PM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

"Even so, I've known plenty of dudes who cat call all the time. I'm sure you do too--I'm sure every guy does."

Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, they must do it when I'm not around. If any of my friends acted like that in my presence, I'd tell them to shut up, but the situation has never arisen. Apparently this behavior isn't acceptable in all social circles.

"You've told me that 1)Some guys whistled at you when you didn't want to be whistled at and 2)Some guy thought you smiled at him and was miffed when you didn't respond to his advances. That sounds like run of the mill bad human social interactions, not the actions of a would-be rapist."

Some guys seem to have a problem understand why strangers whistling at someone might seem threatening. Maybe it would help if you imagine the following situation - due to some misunderstanding, you've been thrown into prison. As you walk to your cell, some huge muscle-bound gang banger with his cronies by his sides whistles at you and blows you a kiss. Do you feel threatened? You're now experiencing the power differential and potential for violence that a 130 pound women might feel when a group of strange men on the street throw whistles and catcalls her way.

Finally, xmutex - WTF dude??!! Since when do you think it's okay to start calling another poster a liar with absolutely no supporting evidence or argument?
posted by tdismukes at 12:15 PM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

But it is obvious that you would rather not entertain the notion that you might learn things that will make you uncomfortable

If you bothered to read my other comments, you'd see that I was part of a conversation with both men and women in this thread, until I stumbled upon your awesometastic trolling. (seriously, dude, if you want max favourites, you should ALL CAPS "listen to the women" instead of just bolding it) Who's being glib now? Who's being smug?

I thought I was past responding to trolls, but if you're gonna bold my name in a callout, at least have the courtesy to read what that person has contributed to the thread before continuing with your "I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOU" diatribe.

It's not about "comfort". It's about respect. Even if you think you have *nothing* to learn from another perspective.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:17 PM on October 8, 2009

Huh. Yeah, I mean, it all seemed like pretty obvious stuff to me. But I guess the sad part is that there are guys who really don't know this stuff.

Ick.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:17 PM on October 8, 2009

Robin Kestrel: Here's the analogy: Group A mistrusts/fears Group B in an isolated one-on-one situation, with some stats to back it up. Member of Group A writes a guide to Group B admonishing them and advising on how not to be so threatening in that setting. The power dynamic is the same for that scenario; the white person's advantages in society are no shield from a potential gun, or knife, or physical violence.

Right, but the reason your analogy doesn't work is that people react negatively to the idea of a white guy telling black people everywhere how to be non-threatening, because that white guy is in the position of cultural power, and he's encouraging a harmful stereotype of black people as vicious thugs and then claiming that they're responsible for the stereotype. This is not analogous to a woman telling men how to be non-threatening, because the men are in the position of cultural power.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

most women understand that most men are not threats in most situations. But even some of those men are threats in certain situations. Women have to be very careful, that's all we want you to know. And many women feel thay have to be extra careful. I live in a small town, 2000 people. I'm sure I would act very differently if I lived in New York City....it's just the reality for all women in U.S. society.
posted by brneyedgrl at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2009

Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, they must do it when I'm not around.

Yeah, that keeps striking me, too. I'll certainly agree that being catcalled would be threatening, and I don't doubt that it happens. But I can say with 100% certainty that I've never, ever seen the behavior in the wild. Maybe it's a regional thing; I've lived in the Midwest my entire life, half of it in a small town in Nebraska, half in Minneapolis. Maybe catcalling's a coastal thing.
posted by COBRA! at 12:23 PM on October 8, 2009

No. No good. Not about this. I'm deadly serious.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us.

And because of the way you're presenting this, I'm not going to read your discussion, or even the rest of your comment. Maybe I should. Maybe it would be good for me. Maybe you have something interesting to say. But no matter how eminently right you are, you simply can't behave this way and expect to be listened to.
posted by darksasami at 12:23 PM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

brneyedgrl, I just don't get how it's different than any other unwanted interaction, that people of both sexes endure every day without comment. You say that you don't know that the construction guy isn't going to follow you, but similarly, I don't know that the homeless guy who asks me for money isn't going to follow me if I don't give it to him. It happens, but I don't find him threatening until he starts following me. Before that he's just a person whose subjected me to an unpleasant social interaction.

Maybe it doesn't happen EVERY time you give some jackass a dirty look in traffic, but imagine that it happened about ten times, where some jackass went on a tantrum because you looked at him funny in traffic and ended up going road-rage on you.

If ten times in my life someone went crazy on me because I shot them a dirty look, I can saw with completely honesty that I would continue to shoot people dirty looks. That aside, you've posited a hypothetical which is backwards from what we're discussing. In your hypothetical it is the (road-rage)victim who did the acting, so the change in behavior it effects is for the victim to refrain from acting in the future. A better analogy would be this: What if ten times, when someone asked you to let them switch lanes in front of you, you refused, and they went crazy. Would you actually feel threatened when someone asked you to let them switch lanes in front of you? It's something that happens everyday, that went wrong only a few times. You might if you had actually be seriously hurt in some way, but I think in that situation, we would all agree that, while the person was not "wrong" to feel threatened, we would not be changing our behavior based on that person's idiosyncratic feelings.

As you walk to your cell, some huge muscle-bound gang banger with his cronies by his sides whistles at you and blows you a kiss. Do you feel threatened? You're now experiencing the power differential and potential for violence that a 130 pound women might feel when a group of strange men on the street throw whistles and catcalls her way.

This is also a terrible analogy. The situation you've described is designed, by the person whistling, to be intimidating. That's because the archetypal male-male prison relationship is a non-consensual one. Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:23 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

How about we listen to each other? No? No good? Alright then. Laters.

I'm a woman, and I've gotten to listen to what men think about rape, sexual assault, and how women should/should not act my whole goddamn life. So, no, no good, unless you (the general "you") are saying something really different, and most of you aren't.
posted by rtha at 12:24 PM on October 8, 2009 [16 favorites]

Always handy to remember that disagreeing /= not listening, no matter how loudly you shout it. Metafilter, for all its merits, has a ridiculous amount of intolerance for disagreement on a few issues, and I'm not sure there's even any real disagreement here. Just give and take on various points, the way it should be (until an asshat comes along -- you should only be listening to X people? Really?).

Anyway, duties actually do call. It's been an interesting thread and I thank (most of) you for your thoughtful contributions.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:25 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

This is a one of the main problems of the conversation we're having here, and of any conversation between (some) men and (most) women about rape and rape culture.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us.

You have a funny definition for conversation. Is everybody from Chicago like that?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:27 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'll certainly agree that being catcalled would be threatening, and I don't doubt that it happens. But I can say with 100% certainty that I've never, ever seen the behavior in the wild.

Well, if you're not the target of it, of course you're not seeing it. That's...kind of an obvious step there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:28 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, they must do it when I'm not around. If any of my friends acted like that in my presence, I'd tell them to shut up, but the situation has never arisen. Apparently this behavior isn't acceptable in all social circles."

I've only really catcalled once, while I was visiting my brother in Korea. I was drunk, with him and one of his Korean buddies, and all of the "catcalling" was yelling "Hello!" (well, in Korean) at pretty much everyone who walked by. It was pretty fun at the time; about half of the people (mostly women, but some guys too) would say hello back, either in Korean or English. A couple of times they tried to get into conversations, but I knew Korean like a dog knows English, so it was mostly nodding with a wide-eyed moronic grin on my face and repeating hello and thank you over and over.

I have no idea how much this is actually accepted in Korean culture. The Korean guy we were with assured us it was common and OK, but even then, I'm not sure how it was perceived by the recipients, except for thinking that we were drunken morons slurping Cass outside the GS25 (which we were). I saw it the same way I see playing what my girlfriend and I call the Airport Game, where, while on moving sidewalks, you solicit high fives from strangers going the other way (where I get a way better response level from women, generally). But thinking about it now, I am worried that it was threatening or weird. I know my brother was embarrassed, but he seemed embarrassed by just about everything I did in Korea.
posted by klangklangston at 12:31 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

A few weeks ago I was walking home from the subway late at night. There was a lone female about a block and a half ahead of me walking in the same direction. I always loathe when this happens because I feel super awkward because I know that if I'm not careful I can give off the wrong vibe (often without realizing it), but this time was especially bad. I had a rolling suitcase as I had been traveling, which meant she could hear me approaching, although in my mind at the time I hoped that would mitigate the situation slightly as it would give me a purpose to be walking home and not just a random person out trolling the streets. Despite the rolling suitcase I was walking briskly, and owing to a significant height discrepancy I had a naturally faster pace anyway so I knew I would soon overtake her. In my mind I wanted this to happen as soon as possible because I figured the least threatening position for me with respect to her would be for me to be ahead of her with my back to her and getting farther and farther away, so I kept at a brisk pace. Unfortunately she must have been wigged out as she heard me approaching from a half block or so behind as she increased her pace to a very brisk one. Combined with a couple of street crossings where she went before the light changed and I waited for the signal, this meant that we kept this up for a short while. I knew it was uncomfortable for me but I'm sure it was even more harrowing for her. Finally the timing was right with the crosswalk ahead changing that I could finally pass without having to linger near her so I just sort of motored right on by with no eye contact whatsoever and made as little show of it as possible, eager to put as much space between us as possible.

In retrospect I probably seriously creeped out this poor girl, but at the time I was honestly trying to do the thing that would get us both out of a weird situation as fast as possible. It was the best that I could come up with at the time. I wanted to just say "hey, look, I know this is weird, but if you just let me pass you I'll be on my way and out of your space as soon as possible" but of course you can't actually say that as it makes things worse. I suppose I could have tried to walk very slowly but it seemed apparent to me that we were both headed to the same general area and we would have just caught up at the crossings each time anyway (and the differences in gait were pretty significant.) In my mind slowing down would have just prolonged the period where she would have had to endure the rolling sound of someone constantly a half block or so behind her. On reflection I suppose I could have crossed the street and walked on the other side but that seriously did not enter my mind at the time.

I'm not sure what to make of this experience other than to relate that I hate that things have to be this way and I really regret that some poor girl was weirded out by me. I would honestly welcome any advice for how to handle this kind of situation in the future.
posted by Rhomboid at 12:33 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

Well, if you're not the target of it, of course you're not seeing it. That's...kind of an obvious step there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos

Isn't this what xmutex got (rightfully) keel-hauled for?
posted by COBRA! at 12:33 PM on October 8, 2009

Huh. I've actually been thinking about how statistics like this translate into real-world possibilities.

Sometimes I look around at the men at work, and wonder how many have raped someone. Or how many of the women have been raped. Or how many of both have abused a child. These numbers are unlikely to be zero, as suggested in this link.

I once dated a women who had been raped by a stranger at knife-point, and it was the first time in my young life that I had been exposed to the realities of that sort of chance encounter with another person.

So, yes. Let's cut some women some slack here. You can't live your whole life in fear, but each woman has to find her own comfort zone.

I though everyone asked their women friends to call when they got home, and made it clear and obvious when sending them off in a cab that a missed "I'm home" call would result in a call to the cab company. (I personally know three women who were assaulted by their cab driver.)
posted by clvrmnky at 12:34 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't know that the homeless guy who asks me for money isn't going to follow me if I don't give it to him.

Here's the thing, B. It's about power and control.....it's also about the fact that at least you might have a chance against a homeless guy, being a man and all. First of all he would think twice about engaging you at all, then when YOU said no, he most likely take it from you. In a case like this and other cases, men (homeless or not) will take "no" from a man but will keep trying on a women because he has no respect for her physical ability or her "resistance" ability. I'll admit that I'm a big girl of good Norweigan stock, but I don't think I'd have a chance in hell against any man and most women, physically. And at my age now, I would have no problem telling an annoying man to go fuck himself, but I couldn't have done that 20-30 yrs ago. It just wasn't my nature back then. Now I don't care what anybody thinks about me, but most women aren't there yet, and some women never get there.
posted by brneyedgrl at 12:36 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I've only really catcalled once, while I was visiting my brother in Korea. I was drunk, with him and one of his Korean buddies, and all of the "catcalling" was yelling "Hello!" (well, in Korean) at pretty much everyone who walked by.

That's not catcalling.

If, instead, you'd been yelling "nice ass!" or "work it!" or "bet you've got a fiiiiiiiine pussy!", then THAT would have been catcalling.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:36 PM on October 8, 2009

So I just lurk and read, usually, but wow, there is some serious bullshit in this thread.

Because cat calling only rarely escalates into the second group, it's not appropriate to treat all cat calling as threatening.

Because displaying a firearm only rarely escalates into shooting someone, it's not appropriate to treat my waving a gun around as threatening. It's unfair that you're treating me like I might shoot someone, you don't know me or you'd know I'd never shoot anyone.

I'm saying that I don't see how a cat call is a threat, because in my analogous experience that type of behavior is not threatening.

First, your experience isn't analogous, so let's just clear that up right now. Second, what you're basically saying is, "I don't experience this as a problem, therefore it's not a problem until you explain to my satisfaction why it's a problem. If you can't explain it to my satisfaction, then you're being unreasonable."

It boggles my mind that you guys think this is difficult or asking too much of you. You think that occasionally being made to feel like you're threatening is in any way comparable to women feeling threatened? You think that's some kind of massive burden from which you should be defended at all costs, even the cost to a person's safety?

But I'm talking to you, Bulgaroktonos, because even though I think you're being unreasonable, at least you're trying to converse and figure it out. xmutex, coolguymichael, borgesian: you guys are probably hopeless, but just in case you're not, please stop it. You're making the world I live in shittier than it needs to be, all because you can't comprehend that you're not the only people in it.

On preview: ah, crap.

And because of the way you're presenting this, I'm not going to read your discussion, or even the rest of your comment. Maybe I should. Maybe it would be good for me. Maybe you have something interesting to say. But no matter how eminently right you are, you simply can't behave this way and expect to be listened to.

Isn't it nice to be able to walk away from a discussion about women's safety and sexual assault whenever you decide that you don't want to listen anymore? Gosh, if only her tone were more acceding, then she'd be given the gift of your attention.

Women don't get to walk away from this conversation; this conversation follows them home. If you care about women, you don't walk away either, because you can't begin to live in the same world as the women you love if you walk away from their reality.

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

This is ridiculous, unless you are under the impression that nonconsensual behavior is ok if it somehow, magically, leads to consensual behavior. By the way, it doesn't.
posted by Errant at 12:36 PM on October 8, 2009 [73 favorites]

Sorry, I had an incomplete thought -- klangklangston, the only reason I jumped all "that wasn't catcalling" into things was because I realized that maybe that's part of the disconnect, that some people think we mean "hi!" is catcalling. When actually, when a woman is talking about catcalling, she is talking about something much more nakedly sexual -- which maybe will also help some of the men understand why we're up in arms about it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:40 PM on October 8, 2009

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

NO, NO, NO...you did not seriously type this into your computer!! It's a joke right?
posted by brneyedgrl at 12:44 PM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

This is also a terrible analogy. The situation you've described is designed, by the person whistling, to be intimidating. That's because the archetypal male-male prison relationship is a non-consensual one. Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

Really? Are you joking? Do you really think that, as a method of courtship, cat-calling is ever effective? Does any woman ever go "Sure, you seem so nice, let's get it on?" I'm going to go with no. And if you're willing to admit that it's sexist, you should pretty much be able to figure out why it seems threatening. As zarq already said above, because it lowers women into the status of objects without their own feelings in the eyes of those doing the catcalling, and from there it's a short leap to feeling that it's okay to treat them as an object in other ways. Sure, not all of them are going to make that leap, but enough do that it's going to feel threatening all of the time. The point is that women never know which ones are the ones who are going to turn out to be dangerous, so it always feels dangerous. I don't know why that's hard to understand.
posted by Caduceus at 12:44 PM on October 8, 2009 [21 favorites]

I don't think it's even necessary to introduce the question "Is he a rapist" into the dynamic. If I am on the bus reading a book (and I am always reading a book. I take the bus because I can read on it, which buys me an extra hour of study time every class day over other transit methods), then it would be courteous of a stranger not to assume that his or her desire to chat with me, or flirt with me, or pick me up supercedes my desire to read my book.

I give pretty unambiguous clues that I am intent upon my book, rather than open to chatting: I keep my eyes on it except to look up and check the route's progress, or to shift my possessions or move my legs for the convenience of other passengers; I have a pen and Post-Its handy, and I'm using them.

Still, at least once a week someone decides that I am required to talk with them, even though I am clearly trying to immerse myself in my work. It is usually a man about my age, and usually a man who wants to flirt. And he thinks that I have an obligation to flirt back, or at least to sit passively and let him flirt with me. I'll respond to a brief greeting or compliment as quickly and politely as I can, but when the stranger tries to extend it into a conversation, most of the time I try to exit gracefully.

The book should make that easier, but it doesn't always.

When I politely remark that I am busy studying (a fact that any sensible person could see, if they were bothering to), the strange man very rarely takes this gentle rebuff with good grace. A typical sample of the rebuff and the response:

Elsa: [smiling, speaking in a light tone] Oh, I'm afraid I can't really talk. I'm studying for an exam. [gestures at book]
Stranger: Well, if you're going to be that way about it! I was just trying to be friendly!

Sometimes the remark is stronger still. I have been called a bitch on the bus more often than anywhere else, simply for my polite and smiling rebuffs of insistent chattering.

This should illustrate a large portion of women's resistance to chitchat with strangers. I don't rebuff a stranger's chatter because I think he's a rapist (though I, too, have been threatened and creeped out and followed home by strangers, and of course the possibility does lurk in my mind sometimes), but because I do not want to get called a bitch as part of my morning routine. Keeping the interaction to a minimum reduces the chances of some seemingly friendly stranger suddenly turning aggressive.

I can see how one might extend this dynamic into the question "Is he a rapist?" a quote from the linked article [emphasis is in the original]:

So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

posted by Elsa at 12:45 PM on October 8, 2009 [32 favorites]

Robin Kestrel: There's nothing in this article that I disagree with, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What's next? "People of Color - How to Approach a White Person Without Looking Like a Mugger"?

Try "Community Policing in the Ghetto & Barrio (for white cops)"
posted by morganw at 12:48 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Ok, I took a break, calmed down, and reset my "Benefit-of-the-Doubt-o-meter" to zero.

Sorry, aaronbeekay, for yelling at you, but your comment was a perpetuation of victim-blaming and rape culture, and what bothers me most about that is that you didn't even realize it. I know I should be angrier at the trolls in this thread than the guys who seem to be trying but just not getting it, so I apologize for taking out on you the anger that should be directed at others. The thing is, it's never her fault, no matter how much she drank or what she wore or where she walked or how late she stayed out or how badly she failed to assess the risk posed by the guy next to her. It's not her fault. And saying that she should be more careful about how much she drinks and with whom she socializes is the equivalent of saying it's her fault if she gets raped, and that's just plain wrong.

I'm saying that I don't see how a cat call is a threat, because in my analogous experience that type of behavior is not threatening. All you've given me is "Some women feel that it is." That's fine for what it's worth, but it doesn't explain to me WHY. What I've inferred is that some women find cat calls threatening because they think they are prelude to more harmful conduct. That also doesn't jive with me experiences of men, and of cat calling, so I'm left wondering why women find them threatening.

Ok, Bulgaroktonos, but the thing is your experiences of men & cat calling can never be the same as a woman's experiences of them. See, I don't typically get the cat calls and harassment if I'm walking down the street next to my boyfriend or my brother. And if the street is crowded with people I'm also less likely to hear "Hey, Baby, walk those sweet legs over this way! ... I said come here!" yelled at me. When the truly egregious examples of harassment and verbal assault happen it's when there are no (or at least, few) uninvolved men around to witness them. So, without Harry Potter's invisibility cloak or the ability to transform into a woman, it really is impossible for you to fully understand cat calling and why women consider it threatening. Now can you take our word for it?
posted by philotes at 12:50 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Because displaying a firearm only rarely escalates into shooting someone, it's not appropriate to treat my waving a gun around as threatening. It's unfair that you're treating me like I might shoot someone, you don't know me or you'd know I'd never shoot anyone.

Well, that's obviously nonsense, since the ENTIRE point of waving a gun around is to threaten other people. The purpose of catcalling is not.

It boggles my mind that you guys think this is difficult or asking too much of you. You think that occasionally being made to feel like you're threatening is in any way comparable to women feeling threatened? You think that's some kind of massive burden from which you should be defended at all costs, even the cost to a person's safety?

I don't catcall, or approach strange women to ask for their phone numbers, partially because I'm married, but mostly because I'm a spineless nerd. (I do oggle, but discreetly). I don't really have a dog in this fight in terms of any sort of personal burden, as I've never felt women intimidated by my presence. (I tend to go out with my wife and our scrawny spineless nerd friend, who intimidates less than zero people). My problem is with the tenor of a discussion that equates any sort of male behavior toward women as threatening. It's not about the burden that it imposes on me or anyone else, it's about that being both an inaccurate conception of the world and morally wrong.

This is ridiculous, unless you are under the impression that nonconsensual behavior is ok if it somehow, magically, leads to consensual behavior. By the way, it doesn't.

Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you. That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship. Consensual sexual relationships typically begin with some sort of overture from one party to the other, usually regarding attractiveness. In that way, catcalling is typical of consensual sexual relationships. Prison sexual relationships(as in the poster I was respond to's hypo) are not usually understood as consensual, so the prison catcall is more threatening. My point was regarding the consensualness of catcalling itself, but rather the consensualness of the sexual relationship to which it is an invitation.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:52 PM on October 8, 2009

Bulgaroktonos: Here's what you said, tzikeh:
1)The fact that someone talked to you and didn't seem afraid does not mean they weren't afraid of you.

That is correct. If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly listen to your proof.

2)The fact that you TALKED to another person, and did nothing else does not make it "okay" to talk to them.

I did not say that. You said and no one got raped or otherwise traumatized, which, let us be clear, is oversimplified and derisive. My response of Which, of course, makes it all okay was in the same tone. If you truly believe I meant that even though you didn't rape your conversation partner, it still wasn't all right to talk to her, you are being deliberately obtuse.

3)The fact that you think it's okay to TALK to another person is part of the problem.

I did not say that. You said I think most people see it that way, and I said that was the problem; i.e. that most people are blind to the countless societal elements involved in the interaction from the woman's point of view.

I'm... pretty sure that it's fruitless, at this point, to continue to respond, but I can keep hoping that something will make sense.

Bulgaroktonos: brneyedgrl, I'm saying that I don't see how a cat call is a threat, because in my analogous experience that type of behavior is not threatening.

You cannot have had an analogous experience. Ever. Nothing you have experienced is the same as what a woman would experience in the exact same situation.

All you've given me is "Some women feel that it is." That's fine for what it's worth, but it doesn't explain to me WHY. What I've inferred is that some women find cat calls threatening because they think they are prelude to more harmful conduct. That also doesn't jive with me experiences of men, and of cat calling, so I'm left wondering why women find them threatening.

This is as blunt an explanation as I have ever found, so if this doesn't work, I don't know what will.

From a column about the PBS documentary No Safe Place:

"Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, "They are afraid women will laugh at them." When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, "We're afraid of being killed."

posted by tzikeh at 12:57 PM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: joedan, I completely agree, which is why I'm finding it funny that everyone accusing me of being "willfully obtuse" ignored the fact that my first post was precisely about drawing a line between cat calling, and yelling in a dangerous and threatening way. Because cat calling only rarely escalates into the second group, it's not appropriate to treat all cat calling as threatening. Any more than it would be to treat every time someone ask you for a dollar as a robbery attempt, even though it sometimes escalates like that.

Yeah, I don't think you're being willfully obtuse. It seems to me that y'all are just talking past each other, as is often the case when men and women talk about this kind of stuff. I think that both men and women have to make a real effort to see things from the other's perspective.

You're right that men assault men all the time. The difference between that and male/female confrotation, from my point of view as a guy, is that I believe that I can hold my own against most dudes as long as we're both unarmed. I might get beat up, ultimately, but I'm gonna hurt the other dude before he takes me down. That's not the case for women. The fact of the matter is that the average unarmed man can overpower the unarmed average woman. This is a fact that women are constantly aware of when they're around men. Think about that for a minute. Think about how that power disparity would shape your worldview.

The power disparity is a crucial element here. That's why I brought up the cops. Let's face it, if a cop pulls me over and suddenly decides he wants to shoot me, I'm fucked. That's what a power disparity is like. Maybe you've had a bad experience with the cops. Maybe you know what that's like, too.

You say that women finding cat calling threatening doesn't jive with your experience. Sure. But you probably don't find most men threatening. Given my life experiences as a Latino, I find the cops threatening by default. Imagine that your brother, or your uncle, or cousin, or your best friend got the crap beat out of him by a cop last month just for walking down the street. Imagine that you grew up hearing stories about the cops harrasing, beating up, and sometimes killing guys who were just minding their own business. That's my experience, dude. Imagine that I was walking down the street and a cop yelled at me, "Hey you, come over here!" Would you blame me if I was a little nervous, even if all he wanted to do was ask for the time?

Now imagine that half the population was made up of cops. Wouldn't you feel nervous if the cops shouted at you?

This might seem far fetched to you, but it really isn't. Again, look at the stories in this thread. Most of the women reading this have had bad experiences with men to some degree. I'm sure that some have had experiences so painful that they try not to think about them. Can't you see how, given the prevalence of those experiences among women, they might find cat calls to be aggressive and threatening?
posted by joedan at 12:58 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

I'm not sure where some guys get off by being offended at the reality of women not wanting to suffer sexual violence. It's a fear centered around activity that actually happens in this world. *I* know I'm never strutting around, looking for women to rape, but there's no way to tell that for sure without getting to know me first, and even then, I bet there are some awfully normal-seeming rapists out there.

That and it's probably annoying having to put up with fedora-wearing romeos who may not be rapists, but who certainly do chat up ladyfolk when that activity is not wanted.

That said...

"Even so, I've known plenty of dudes who cat call all the time. I'm sure you do too--I'm sure every guy does."

Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, then they must do it when I'm not around. If any of my friends acted like that in my presence, I'd tell them to shut up, but the situation has never arisen. Apparently this behavior isn't acceptable in all social circles.

Another vote for this. I've seen catcalling on the street before here in NYC, usually from honest-to-god construction workers, but if any of my friends are doing this, then they're doing this in the utmost secrecy and never, ever speaking of it to any other human being that I know.

People who find catcalling acceptable tend to cluster with other people who find catcalling acceptable, and vice versa.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:59 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Bulgaroktonos: The situation you've described is designed, by the [muscle-bound gang banger with his cronies] whistling, to be intimidating. That's because the archetypal male-male prison relationship is a non-consensual one. Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

Actually, no it isn't. That's exactly the point! Cat-calling is not initiating a conversation, or asking someone out; it's a one sided communication from a position of power. The woman is just walking somewhere. She doesn't know if the guy whistling is being funny to his friends, trying to pay a compliment in a retarded way, or projecting dominance or a sense of ownership.

And neither do you, walking through prison. Maybe the muscly gang banger thinks it's hilarious to scare the noob, and has no intention of rape. Maybe he's marking you as his territory. You don't know, but you know the possibility of it being bad is real. That's legitimately threatening.
posted by msalt at 12:59 PM on October 8, 2009 [16 favorites]

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

No, some men have cat-called me and followed me around while I was walking home alone at night about how they want to have sex with me. That's not consensual, that's "I could rape you right now and what are you going to do about it?"

Other times if it's broad daylight you'll get guys who if you don't respond positively will either yell "Fuck you, you frigid bitch, you're ugly anyway!" or "Fuck you, you ugly slut you've got a big ass!" I guess under your logic this just counts as an "unwanted interaction" or whatever but to me it's intimidation. "Act like you want to fuck me or I'll publicly verbally abuse and embarrass you." How is that consensual if there's an implicit threat of verbal (or other) violence?
posted by Marnie at 12:59 PM on October 8, 2009 [24 favorites]

That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship.

Catcalling is not an invitation to "enter into a relationship." Catcalling is an exercise of dominance and power.
posted by blucevalo at 1:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Ugh, Bulgaroktonos. Do you know when I was catcalled the most in my life? When I was a young teenager. Do you really think that middle-aged men leaning out their car windows and whistling at a 14-year-old is an invitation to a consensual relationship?

I've never had the guts to throw a snappy comeback like The corpse in the library (usually too busy feeling disgusted and disgusting), but the genuinely shocked reactions of men when women dare speak back to their catcalling reveal that the men are never interested in a relationship of any sort.
posted by oinopaponton at 1:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

Also, protip: you don't oggle discreetly. Trust me, they know.
posted by joedan at 1:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you. That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship.

You don't think it is at all strange to tell someone WHOM YOU HAVE NEVER MET BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE that you want to have sex with them, that nakedly? You don't think it is at all strange to have THE VERY FIRST BIT OF COMMUNICATION YOU HAVE WITH SOMEONE to be a blatant "I want to have sex with you" declaration?

Maybe that's the problem we're having, is the fact that you don't seem to understand that the idea of "I want to have sex with you" as THE VERY FIRST THING YOU SAY TO SOMEONE is pretty damn creepy. I'll admit I'm a bit easy-going about this, but if someone were to state this in words to me upon just meeting me, I'd be honestly baffled and ask, "um, based on....what criteria, precisely?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:01 PM on October 8, 2009 [33 favorites]

OK, I don't get why Bulgaroktonos doesn't get why catcalling is threatening, but hey, let's try this:

When was the last time you saw a woman or group of women catcall a dude? And I don't mean, like, a bachelorette party halfway through a pub crawl. Never, huh? Yeah, see, that's the thing.

When the stereotypical band of construction workers catcall some passing lady, it's implicitly also about a power relationship between men and women, and in this relationship it's the dudes who have the upper hand. Ergo, the women don't, so it's threatening to them. Rocket science this ain't.
posted by axiom at 1:03 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

usually from honest-to-god construction workers

Doing the math again in my head, it's usually dudes in cars. They do it then because they're cowards who know they can speed off before facing any consequences.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

B. The catcall IS a threatening gesture to many people, and men who do it, are doing it for power and control over the woman. He's telling her that she's not respected enough to be left alone, she is there for his pleasure, and he doesn't care who knows it. She has not consented to her space being invaded like this, her body being commented on, her attractiveness being judged. How can this be construed as being consensual?
posted by brneyedgrl at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2009 [22 favorites]

Well, that's obviously nonsense, since the ENTIRE point of waving a gun around is to threaten other people. The purpose of catcalling is not.

...

Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you. That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship.

To a great many people, an unsolicited and blatantly sexual sexual message is threatening. Let me break down some reasons why: the person issuing the "invitation" is loudly breaking several boundaries of widespread social interaction, e.g., we don't usually yell at strangers, we don't usually trumpet sexual interest, we don't usually try to jump from strangerhood into sexual relationships. A person who disregards these pretty basic social boundaries may not respect other social contracts, including the prohibitions against touching strangers, beating up strangers, and raping strangers.
posted by Elsa at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2009 [35 favorites]

> I'm not trying to dictate how anyone else feels, I'm just trying to explain why I believe the being afraid me is not reasonable. Now, obviously people will act in ways that don't seem rational to me, but I'm not really able to alter my behavior because of it unless they provide me with an explanation that I can understand.

It's not rational or right that I might feel afraid of you if you're a really nice guy who means no harm to me. And I fucking hate that it just has to be this way. I wish I lived in a world where I didn't have to fear you on some level, but it is what it is.

I know this might be too much for some, but if you really want to know, maybe if I explain it you'll understand and quit feeling so victimized by a society that tells you you're dangerous.

It was late at night, I was coming back from a bar at 2am. I'd had one beer around 9pm, but I was really only at the bar to see The Flaming Lips (before they got really famous). I was in a really awesome mood walking home. When I got to my building, I got my mail and saw a letter from my best friend, whom I hadn't gotten a letter from in a long time.

It was a really nice night, so I went to my favorite place in the world, which was the nearby cemetery, to read my letter. My friends and I hung out there all the time, and it felt like a safe place. I was an art major studying photography, so I hung out there shooting gravestones and whatnot. It was right in the middle of town. I was wearing jeans, sneakers, a tee, and a hoodie.

Sitting on the steps of the mausoleum, smoking a cigarette, I read. A guy startled me when he came around the corner (how long had he been there?) to ask me for a light. I was completely freaked out by the surprise, but I'm not the kind of girl who spooks too easily, and he was a guy wanting to smoke -- we could be peers. I stood up to light his smoke and saw his mask. I froze. I froze solid. You read that your survival instincts kick in and you run automatically, but I froze.

Next thing I know, he's swinging me in circles by my sleeve, trying to throw me to the ground. I fought, but he was strong and I was so caught off guard. I have no idea how many times he spun me, but I eventually fell onto my back. I remember thinking FUCK ALL, I fell for the oldest trick in the book.

He had a HUGE dick. I was no virgin, but I was totally not in the mood for sex, so I was not lubricated. He held a knife to my throat, so I didn't budge, fearing he'd kill me. I knew he'd kill me. I didn't scream that I recall, but I'm sure I did. No? I have no idea if I made a sound. I remember thinking very clearly that if I struggled, I'd die, but if I kept still and just let him do it, I'd be raped, but I'd live. I felt it all. I felt myself tear from the force of his giant dick pushing into me. I could feel blood everywhere. I shut my eyes and my mind raced. I knew I could live with being raped. It's not death; it's just a crazy form of sex. I knew sex, and I also remember thinking (crazily) that I would be able to disassociate this event from future sexual scenarios, so I would definitely be able to get over it and still have a good sexlife. I know. Crazy where your mind goes when you're not in control. But it felt true, it felt relevant to think about it that way right then.

What I remember most is the look in his eyes -- remember that picture of Charles Manson on the cover of Life? He had those eyes, and it freaked me out. He also drooled and spat on me while he fucked me hard, making me bleed, and jesus fuck, but it hurt. They also say you don't feel pain when your adrenaline is going, but I felt it. (The nurse cringed when she told me later that thankfully the blood acted like a lubricant, so I didn't require surgery.) I remember the precise moment when the pain changed from searing tearing of flesh to the stinging of open cuts. It's weird what you remember.

It eventually ended. I lay on the ground, freezing cold suddenly, shaking like hell. I tried to play dead or something, listening to him running away. I curled up in a ball and cried, sort of screaming in a way, and I could hear myself start to retch before I felt it. I puked and tried to stand, but I blacked out and fell down on my hands and knees, making weird noises. I shut my eyes and tried to think about my next action. It took me a minute to remember what had just happened, I think because I blacked out for a few seconds. I realized what had happened in a rush, and I got up and ran home, crying, scared that he was waiting for me up the street, waiting to hurt me again. I didn't sleep for days afterward because I was still frightened.

Now, is that an explanation that makes you sort of understand why I'm hesitant to accept you right off the bat for the kind, intelligent, caring guy you probably are? It gives me no real pleasure to type this out for you, but by the same token, I'm not ashamed of it, and I don't really mind talking about it in "safe" company. MetaFilter is something of a safe place for us, isn't it?

I'm a little apprehensive to assume you're cool if I don't know you.

All I'd done is give the guy a light. If it were you, and I'd have told you to leave me alone, or I'd run away, you'd be hurt. But see what happened once when I gave a guy a light? I can't waste my time wondering if you'll recover from this slight. If I give you some time and I explain to you WHY you frighten me, I run the risk of being labelled by you and blown-off. And it takes too many words to tell you why I'm afraid of some guys -- some guys just set off the panic bell in my head, and I can't even tell you why. It's just a feeling, and it has roots even I don't fully understand. You have to let me off the hook and just accept that I feel that way. Don't get down on yourself. It's not about you; it's about me.

It's a fucking crapshoot, trusting people, and I know it. Yeah, I still lit cigarettes for guys after that, back when I smoked. What all the guys asking for a light in the years following didn't know is that I thought about that scene every fucking time I extended my right arm with my lighter. Every time. Sometimes it made me tighten up inside, but I did it. I even sometimes used to light people's cigarettes in order to feel it. It was a way to get over it. Relive it a thousand times, and it hurts less. It's true. It does hurt less every single time because it's not happening this time; I'm just thinking about it.

So I'll cut you some slack for having been ignorant if you'll cut my sisters and me some slack for fearing you sometimes, stranger.
posted by heyho at 1:05 PM on October 8, 2009 [236 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you.

One last shot.

Let me explain why you are wrong. IN YOUR WORLD, the message is: "You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you." That Is Where You Live.

In a woman's world, the message is: "The simple fact that you are a woman means that I have the right to sexually objectify you, right here, in public, and I feel like doing that--and since I can, I am. Your body is mine to appraise out loud, in front of other people, even though I do not know you. I'm bigger and stronger than you. I can have you any time I want you, because I am bigger and stronger than you and I am entitled to your body. And I find this amusing."

In your "analogous" situation, you are not afraid of a woman hurting you. She is not bigger or stronger. You are not threatened by her appreciation of your body. You have never experienced the fear that comes with being objectified, because women are not a threat to you.

If you can't (or won't) understand this, and you won't read the discussion I've pointed to, and the Margaret Atwood quote is something you can brush off as an overreaction, or just one woman's opinion, or whatever it is you've thought of it in order to dismiss it, then I don't know what else to say--except for this: if you do bother to read that discussion, you will be, I guarantee, astounded by the number of comments from women that begin with "I was raped."
posted by tzikeh at 1:08 PM on October 8, 2009 [36 favorites]

Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you. That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship.

I was walking down the street one day when the guy in front of me starting catcalling the woman walking in front of him. His catcalling was all "Hey baby, you're so pretty, your legs are so fine" and making kissy noises. The woman got really stiff, started to walk faster, and her body language was very "Oh shit."

So I asked the guy, "Does that work for you a lot? I mean, when you talk to a woman on the street like that, do you get a lot of phone numbers or action from it?"

He said "Fuck you you fucking dyke bitch mind your own fucking business you cunt."

If you really think that catcalling is an invitation to a consensual sexual relationship, then I suggest you go about trying to get your next girlfriend or casual sexual partner that way. I mean, if that's how it really works, then it should work, right?

Except of course it won't, because women generally do not find it flattering, and we do not think that guys who do it are fine catches. We're so silly like that!
posted by rtha at 1:09 PM on October 8, 2009 [38 favorites]

I've been on Mefi for several years now, and I hardly ever flag comments, but this post brought out some sterling examples of sexist crazy that demanded it. I'm sure you know who you are, fellas. Way to be douches, who, ironically, completely prove the writer's point. Even more ironically, some of you seem so determined to not let women be right about something that you don't even want to let them "win" in the "Who Should Be More Afraid of Sexual Violence?" contest that is only occuring in your screwed-up mind. Because Jeebus forbid women ever have the moral high ground over (any) men, even when it comes to rape/fear of rape.

I mean, the levels of fucked-up-ness in all of that are, truly, mind-boggling. Anyway.

I'd like to counter that by saying, hey Metafilter, this is a tough topic; kudos to so many of you who actually do get what the writer...and lots of the rest of us...are saying. I used the favorite button a lot today as well. The Blue is a good place to be.
posted by emjaybee at 1:10 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

Sticherbeast: "Even so, I've known plenty of dudes who cat call all the time. I'm sure you do too--I'm sure every guy does."

Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, then they must do it when I'm not around. If any of my friends acted like that in my presence, I'd tell them to shut up, but the situation has never arisen. Apparently this behavior isn't acceptable in all social circles.

Another vote for this. I've seen catcalling on the street before here in NYC, usually from honest-to-god construction workers, but if any of my friends are doing this, then they're doing this in the utmost secrecy and never, ever speaking of it to any other human being that I know.

People who find catcalling acceptable tend to cluster with other people who find catcalling acceptable, and vice versa.

I never said it was acceptable and I certainly never said they were my friends. I just said that I've met guys who cat call. Can you honestly say that you've never even met a guy who cat calls?
posted by joedan at 1:10 PM on October 8, 2009

Bulgaroktonos, catcalling is NOT 'typical of consensual sexual relationships'. It is not a friendly overture, one on one, to show interest and hope it might lead to more. It is a guy (or a group of guys) advertising to the world they want to have sex with you. Right now. With the additional caveat that, unlike in a consensual 'get to know you' opener, if you say no or indicate lack of interest, they may then feel they have the right to insult and berate you for not being properly flattered by their completely inappropriate behaviour. Consensual implies you actually CARE what the other person feels. Catcalling, by its very nature, does not.

Also, to those who feel upset because you think a woman not wanting to talk to you means she thinks you're a rapist - its not about you. Let me repeat. It is NOT ABOUT YOU. We don't know you. We know our past experiences, and those related to us by our friends and collegues and articles and blog posts and comments and so on. Plus, you know, we have lives. If you want to strike up a conversation, despite her nose buried in a book or a far off look on her face or even if she's randomly smiling at the world, and she doesn't respond or says no, or turns away, or otherwise goes 'thanks but no thanks', it could be because she's busy, or she's having a bad day, or she's nervous about strange men, or she's a bitch, or she was smiling at that dog over there and not you, or she has a million other things on her mind, or she's feeling anxious, or whatever. She's not really reacting to you, but to a situation. The moment you push it, the moment you react like "I'm not a rapist, how dare she ignore me", then YOU, not her, are making it about you, and not the situation. And at that moment, yes, you're a creep.
posted by sandraregina at 1:10 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

I think the article tries to be provocative, and ends up being offensive. I am not Schrodinger's (or anyone else's) rapist. In the real world, I reckon I'm a net positive for women's safety: I make sure drunk people get into taxis and get home, I walk people to the door in dodgy backstreets, I don't approach people in potentially dodgy situations. I like my own personal space, so I tend to respect other people's. I appreciate that some people basically have man-triggered PTSD (with good reason), but I didn't cause it and I try not to exacerbate it. I know this article is not about me, but it still rankles a little, you know?

What positive effect is this article going to have? It seems to me that the guys that need advice like "don't rape" aren't the target audience. How exactly do we reach the people that are causing the problem? How do we get past this nightmarish culture of suspicion? When will we know we're there?

Also, this does not need to be a one-way conversation - I've read every post here, including that I have no right to be comfortable in this thread. Fair enough.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

very, very sorry heyho.
posted by brneyedgrl at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

What the hell is wrong with the world when saying 'what terrible weather' to someone at a bus stop considered a potential prelude to sexual violence?
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:12 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

Well, as it's generally safe to say that the odds of that particular woman being interested in a consensual relationship with the cat-calling man are vanishingly small, I find it hard to accept that it's a consensual relationship that's being evoked for both parties.

Which is the ugly thing about semiotics and modern communications theory. An utterance isn't defined by your intentions, but by the meanings your audience chose to attach to their words. Which is why great writers, speakers, and songwriters are fairly careful in understanding their audience when they want to be understood.

Well, that's obviously nonsense, since the ENTIRE point of waving a gun around is to threaten other people. The purpose of catcalling is not.

Well, this assumes that catcallers are just plain stupid in failing to note that their targets are likely to be deeply offended and possibly threatened. I think it's pretty well established that the purpose of sexual harassment is often to scare women away from "masculine" spaces.

My problem is with the tenor of a discussion that equates any sort of male behavior toward women as threatening.

In the context of an article which describes in detail how men can be less threatening to women? Please. No one is saying that paying your waitress with a credit card is threatening, having a meeting with a client is threatening, or chewing gum and walking down the street is threatening. Cold-call sexual propositions of strangers may certainly be threatening depending on context.

Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you.

My goodness, don't they teach "know your audience" in basic high-school composition anymore? Or basic communications theory in college composition? As your audience generally doesn't have a magic mind-reading helmet that allows them to understand your intended meaning, the meaning of your utterances are negotiated in the social space between you and your audience.

That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship. Consensual sexual relationships typically begin with some sort of overture from one party to the other, usually regarding attractiveness. In that way, catcalling is typical of consensual sexual relationships.

Do they really? I mean, I've been around the block a few times, and I've only dropped "wanna fuck" generally after a fair quantity of more subtle flirtation, usually involving geeking out over shared interests and a fair amount of body language suggesting mutual interest. (I did once pick up a guy at a gay bar by talking about Star Trek.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:12 PM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

anybody can say "don't rape", but a lot of men need to understand why women behave as they do. And until violence is NOT glorified in movies and TV and on cable and in magazines and on the internet, etc.....women will have to do what they have to do to stay safe and survive.
posted by brneyedgrl at 1:13 PM on October 8, 2009

I never said it was acceptable and I certainly never said they were my friends. I just said that I've met guys who cat call. Can you honestly say that you've never even met a guy who cat calls?

Yes. Or, if I have "met" them - maybe they were a co-worker, maybe they were a classmate, etc. - I never knew them well enough to know that they did that.

I've met dudes who were creepy/violent in other ways, to be sure.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2009

Jesus Christ, heyho. I am so incredibly sorry.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2009

I know this article is not about me, but it still rankles a little, you know?

With all due respect, what makes my anger at having to have had to learn how to INSTINCTIVELY watch my back all the fucking time simply because of an accident of birth any less important than your being "rankled"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2009 [13 favorites]

Wow, so heyho wins the thread award for "Post that if you read it and still feel the same way before you read it, well, you're hopeless." I don't mean to be flip, and heyho's earlier comments were though-provoking, but I came away from this last, deeply personal one basically thinking "if some of these jackasses upthread read that comment and didn't change their minds, fuck it we're all screwed." Can't favorite that comment enough. Thanks, heyho.
posted by axiom at 1:16 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

heyho, for whatever it's worth, I'm extremely sorry you went through that. :(
posted by zarq at 1:17 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

What the hell is wrong with some guys when saying 'what terrible weather' to someone at a bus stop considered a potential prelude to sexual violence?

Fixed that for you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Maybe catcalling's a coastal thing.

I think it happens more in places where people/women are out walking. When people are all in cars, all you see are heads and shoulders, and everyone is encased in metal and glass anyway.

the ENTIRE point of waving a gun around is to threaten other people. The purpose of catcalling is not.

Of course it is. "Hey sweetcheeks, nice tits" is a threatening comment. It objectifies the woman and implicitly says, "I don't care that you don't know me. I don't care that you don't want to hear my opinion of your body. I want to to make a demeaning and objectifying comment to you, so I'm going to." As the original article states, men who intentionally cross some boundaries are worrisome to us because it means they are more likely to be willing to cross others.
posted by Mavri at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2009 [14 favorites]

Wrinkled Stumpkin: I am not Schrodinger's (or anyone else's) rapist.

Until you build a rapport of trust, how is anyone supposed to know that? Maybe because I've just had the bad luck of the draw, but ever rapist I've ever known has been a fine, nice, upstanding guy who stood up for the rights of women, except when they decided to rape.

Winnipeg Dragon: What the hell is wrong with the world when saying 'what terrible weather' to someone at a bus stop considered a potential prelude to sexual violence?

Some guys do use that as a potential prelude to sexual violence. If you don't, good for you. But I think it's unreasonable for women to not be cautious of strangers.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:21 PM on October 8, 2009

Metafilter: I don't even know if its useful to comment at this point

Nope. If any of my male acquaintances behave like that, they must do it when I'm not around.

Ditto. Bulgaroktonos, I can appreciate your perceptions, but I think you're way off about cat-calling. I don't think I've ever seen it done as a genuine attempt to interact sexually with a woman.

It pretty much always seems to be one man's (or group of men's) attempt to sexualize a woman in public. It's not only a somewhat threatening communication from a person with more physical "power" to one with less (as in "Ooh, you should see what I could do with that ass," etc.), it's also a very public shaming ritual (as in "Hey, everybody. Look at this hot slut right here!") IMO, a lot of offense in cat-calling comes from the public embarrassment of having your sexuality unexpectedly and rudely exposed in public.

We've all likely seen some cat-callers plead honest interest ("Hey, why won't you talk to me?!" ...) but it almost always seems to be a cover after they get a hurtful response, etc.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:23 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Well, that's obviously nonsense, since the ENTIRE point of waving a gun around is to threaten other people. The purpose of catcalling is not.

No, no, no, it's not threatening and you're being unreasonable if you think it's threatening. I'm simply exercising my US-ian constitutional rights to open-carry in public. Its purpose is to display my aggressive pursuit of my rights, not to shoot anyone or make anyone feel like they'd get shot. Why would they, I'm a perfectly nice guy who's just expressing himself.

/townhall

My problem is with the tenor of a discussion that equates any sort of male behavior toward women as threatening. It's not about the burden that it imposes on me or anyone else, it's about that being both an inaccurate conception of the world and morally wrong.

First of all, no one is doing this but the guys in the room. None of the women are saying, "all male attention is threatening, everywhere, at all times." It is only some of the guys, which unfortunately includes you, who are characterizing their arguments in this way.

But, second of all, let's say for the sake of argument that that is what they're saying. That doesn't make it "an inaccurate conception of the world", that makes it their experience of the world. It's not inaccurate. It couldn't be inaccurate, because that's how they're perceiving it. You do have a dog in this fight, because you're married, because you know, love, and respect women; your dog in this fight is to listen to what they're telling you and not to tell them they're stupid or wrong for being threatened by things that are threatening.

"Morally wrong"? Really? It's morally wrong to be distrustful of other people? It's sinful to shy away from people you find threatening, even if that's everyone? It's an ethical crime to be threatened?

That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship.

Respectfully, this whole paragraph of yours demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of sexism and power dynamics. In a way I'm ok with that, as it clearly also demonstrates that you and yours are not the type to catcall, ever, which is good. But allow me to suggest that you don't really understand what's going on in these street harassment situations, and a good place to start understanding would be with the idea that there's nothing consensual about them, ever.

On preview: this whole post seems like faint bluster and stupid theorycraft right now. heyho, i'm really sorry. thank you for sharing your story.
posted by Errant at 1:25 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

Durn Bronzefist: How about we listen to each other? No? No good? Alright then. Laters.

tzikeh: No. No good. Not about this. I'm deadly serious. This is a one of the main problems of the conversation we're having here, and of any conversation between (some) men and (most) women about rape and rape culture.

We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us. Nothing you have to say has any bearing on how we have no choice but to live our lives in a world you don't live in.

~~~~~

There's definitely some guys here who don't get it and are being real dicks, and I'm absolutely not saying I do get it. But I was hoping to get some perspective on the above.

1) It makes sense that not only are guys insensitive (even nice ones trying to be), but that it takes a real paradigm shift like this:

huge muscle-bound gang banger with his cronies by his sides whistles at you and blows you a kiss

...to even have a clue. Like that gave me shivers trying to picture it. Scary shit, sure. Am I right that this type of explanation is what tzikeh is talking about?

Now,

2) One of the key words framing this, from where I'm looking, is rape culture. I'm not trying to derail this towards 'women have a point, but guys have feelings too'. I'm not. However, I think it's reasonable for guys to be confused about the two conversations, (a) rape culture, (b) how women and men are supposed to interact when they don't know each other. Is there any overlap? Is it necessary that guys have 'will my actions connote rape?' on their mind whenever they are in the vicinity of women they don't know? I know this place drips with sarcasm, but I intend none here. Based on comments above, I don't have a sense of what different constituents really feel is necessary.

On the one hand I feel like taking this route is comparable to how terrorists can make ordinary democratic citizens feel fear all the time. I.e., it tinges the day-to-day experience and by creating this new lense, has many other negative consequences. What will happen to romance, chivalry, civility, if people have to think like this just to be around each other?

On the other hand, if this is how women feel every day, and what's worse, that ignorance on the part of men contributes to 1/6th of women experiencing irretreivable loss, then you'd have to be a special type of cruel or ignorant not to respect it.

Is there a way to reconcile the two? Can men even be allowed into the conversation?

(3) This is a real leap, but I'm going to throw it out. Men are (often) taught to be forward. I'm really characterizing my own experience, but it's easy to be a guy, look around at work, sport, and, not least of all, interactions with the opposite sex and see how the aggressive are rewarded.

I'm not just talking about football quarterbacks, loudmouths, exploitive capitalists/politicians and the like. I think some concensus can be built around the idea that creating and seizing opportunity has advantages (often enough, mutual advantages).

So how can women and understanding men rationalize (nevermind explain) the idea of a different/better way? The idea that cat-callers create an environment of fear that lowers the romantic opportunity for all seems to have the seed of some kind of explanation, but it seems like a drop in the ocean of male ambition. (Not trying to be all game theoretic, but let's be honest, we're all part animal here)
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 1:26 PM on October 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Some guys do use that as a potential prelude to sexual violence. If you don't, good for you. But I think it's unreasonable for women to not be cautious of strangers.

I don't mean to imply that they shouldn't. What I mean is, what is wrong with people today that they *should* be worried if some guy talks about the weather.

I mean, I strike up small talk with male and female strangers all the time. I obviously don't mean it to be creepy, but I'd hate to think that someone goes home thinking they just dodged a rapist.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:27 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

What the hell is wrong with some guys when saying 'what terrible weather' to someone at a bus stop considered a potential prelude to sexual violence?

Fixed that for you.

I was non-gender specific on purpose. Both genders can be rapists.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2009

(er, I should point out that I know the statistics are such that rapists are *overwhelmingly* male)
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:31 PM on October 8, 2009

Holy shit, heyho. Thank you for posting that.
posted by rtha at 1:33 PM on October 8, 2009

EmpressCallipygos:I was hoping that I'd phrased that mildly enough... I never implied that it there was any comparison, let alone equivalence. It's still not nice being grouped in with rapists for no reason other than a similar accident of birth, and I think it made the (otherwise good) article less effective.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 1:34 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Reasonably Everything Happens: I think the linked article was heading that way with some practical examples: be aware of what your clothing and body language may communicate, approach women on neutral subjects, and be prepared to back off if she's not interested.

Because it's the 21st century, and many women are more than capable of communicating their interest in a potential partner.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:34 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

but the thing is your experiences of men & cat calling can never be the same as a woman's experiences of them.

But I do have experiences of being harassed and bullied, so I take issue with the claim that I can not understand when feeling threatened makes sense. If you're alone, and a group of guys stand in the street and all yell obscene things at you? Sure, that's a scary situation, I can understand feeling threatened. If you're on your way to lunch, and some constructions workers shout at you as you walk by? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

OMNIBUS RESPONSE ON PREVIEW BECAUSE MY BOSS JUST STOOD OVER MY COMPUTER TELLING STORIES FOR HALF AN HOUR
If you'll notice the first time I referred to the consensuality of catcalling, I said it was evoking a sexist, but consensual relationship. Unequal power dynamics can make a relationship bad, but they only make it non-consensual at the extremes. A person might say something with the intention of demeaning you, but that's a long way away from threatening you. It's like insulting someone; is it about exerting power? Sure, but does that make it threatening? I don't tend to feel threatened merely by being called names, and I've certainly been called names in all kinds of contexts, both threatening and nonthreatening. My initial point, lost ages ago, was that merely shouting sexual language at a woman is not a threat, although it can be in context. It's disrespectful, it's sexist, it's inappropriate, but it is not, in and of itself, threatening.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:34 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

"This is also a terrible analogy. The situation you've described is designed, by the person whistling, to be intimidating. That's because the archetypal male-male prison relationship is a non-consensual one. Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual."

"Let me explain what I meant by this. Whistling at a woman as she walks by sends a message. The message is: You are very attractive, I wish I was in a sexual relationship with you. That is to say that the catcall is an invitation to enter into a sexual relationship."

Nope. When you, operating from a position of superior power, violate all kinds of social and personal boundaries to issue an obviously unwelcome "invitation", than you are not operating within a "fundamentally consensual" framework.

Along those same lines, if you are a manager and you ask one of your employees to work late and then once the two of you are alone you mention that you'd really like her to give you a blow job, that doesn't count as "consensual relationship", even if you're thinking how nice it would be for her to willingly have sex with you.

There are plenty of areas of human interaction where a given action is ambigious and may be reasonably interpreted in very different ways by different individuals. This really isn't one of them. I'll be shocked if a single woman in this thread says that she interprets catcalls in terms of a "consensual relationship."
posted by tdismukes at 1:37 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

KJS - that's what I took away from the article as well. Along with some hints as to why other approaches may not work the way a guy might hope they would.
posted by sandraregina at 1:37 PM on October 8, 2009

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

Except that the cat-calling, the drawing of mass attention to a woman's body occurs whether the woman wants it to or not. The relationship evoked is between a man and the object he'd like to satisfy his sexual urges. It is not fundamentally consensual. Objects have no power to consent or deny.
posted by cereselle at 1:38 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

What the hell is wrong with the world when saying 'what terrible weather' to someone at a bus stop considered a potential prelude to sexual violence?

What's wrong with the world is that saying 'what terrible weather' probably HAS been a prelude to sexual violence. Apparently "Can I get a light?" has been, and that's about as benign.

heyho, thank you so much for sharing. I was shaking as I read it.
posted by hegemone at 1:39 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

It's disrespectful, it's sexist, it's inappropriate, but it is not, in and of itself, threatening.

Jesus fuck. In your experience it may not be threatening but believe me when I say, as a woman, that it can indeed be threatening. Yes, even if it happens in the middle of the day, yes, even if it happens on a crowded street, yes. Stop telling people who are not you what is and is not threatening. So fucking presumptuous.

And you haven't explained how catcalling evokes even a remotely consensual relationship.
posted by rtha at 1:39 PM on October 8, 2009 [13 favorites]

What positive effect is this article going to have? It seems to me that the guys that need advice like "don't rape" aren't the target audience. How exactly do we reach the people that are causing the problem? How do we get past this nightmarish culture of suspicion? When will we know we're there?

A lot of guys (not enough) don't need advice like "don't rape", but a lot of those guys clearly need advice on how not to become aggravated when it turns out that a stranger can't read their mind and know their pure, chivalrous intentions. Their aggravation at not getting the recognition they so clearly deserve for being a nice, good guy is also part of the problem.

If you'll notice the first time I referred to the consensuality of catcalling, I said it was evoking a sexist, but consensual relationship.

Sexist relationships aren't consensual, and when you say this, what you're telling women is that they're consenting accomplices to their own marginalization. And just because you don't feel threatened by something doesn't mean it's not threatening and no one else should be threatened by it.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you think threatening is, if disrespectful, sexist, and inappropriate aren't enough to clear the bar.
posted by Errant at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

So how can women and understanding men rationalize (nevermind explain) the idea of a different/better way?

No one right answer to this, but if people could just be better at reading others and responding appropriately, then there would be far less trouble in this area.

If you decide to ask that cute girl on the subway "hi, watcha reading?", then you have to be prepared for the fact that she's probably not going to be thrilled about this new development in her life. By default, she's probably not going to be responsive. You have a right to initiate conversation with people, and she has a right to respond as she likes.

But let's say that you really like the cut of her jib, or that you have an incredibly interesting perspective on her Dragonlance novel, so you plow ahead and keep talking. If after a few more lines of dialogue, she's still not into it, then leave her alone and don't take it personally.

Or, maybe she decides after a bit that you're worth talking to, and then you exchange numbers and do whatever it is people do with phones these days.

The end, either way.

But, you'd be surprised at how many guys don't know when to stop, or at how many guys think that they have some inalienable right to the attention of womenfolk.

And even IF IF IF your average woman has a somewhat exaggerated fear of sexual violence - not saying that that's the case, but purely for the sake of argument, let's say that this is so - it's still pretty clear why your average woman would be afraid of rape and might want to err on the side of caution as a result. You can either whine that too many women confuse your indistinguishable face from the equally indistinguishable faces of potential attackers, or you can just deal with it.

Like I said before, men don't have an inalienable right to the attention of womenfolk.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [12 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: My initial point, lost ages ago, was that merely shouting sexual language at a woman is not a threat, although it can be in context.

Yes, it can be, in context. Look at what the women here are saying: they always have to maintain extreme caution around strange men. That's the context. Can you see how it might seem threatening now?
posted by joedan at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Explain again how is cat-calling consensual?

By that argument, punching a guy in the face is consensual. It's sending a message that 'I don't like you, I'd like to engage in fisticuffs'.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2009 [19 favorites]

Every time I've thought about saying something in this thread, someone else has said it better. And this is just going to be a repeat, too, but this I think is well worth repeating:
Thank you, heyho, for telling your story.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

What's wrong with the world is that saying 'what terrible weather' probably HAS been a prelude to sexual violence. Apparently "Can I get a light?" has been, and that's about as benign.

Yeah, we are a pretty fucked up species. This has been a very thought provoking thread, and I suddenly feel like I have no idea how to deal with strangers in public anymore.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:42 PM on October 8, 2009

If you're alone, and a group of guys stand in the street and all yell obscene things at you? Sure, that's a scary situation, I can understand feeling threatened. If you're on your way to lunch, and some constructions workers shout at you as you walk by? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

I honestly don't see the difference between these two situations. Seriously, I don't. Are we assuming the construction workers aren't yelling obscene things? Is that the difference? If so, what is it that they're yelling?

You may be drawing distinctions between behaviors that are so subtle as to be meaningless. Your definition of "threatening" may also be different than any I understand.

If I am violated verbally I feel threatened for a few reasons. One, it could escalate no matter what I do. Two, I can be intimidated--threatened--into silence in the face of harassing and sexist behavior. Third, if I do dare to speak up, I can be followed, called a frigid bitch, etc. Many women have reported how cat-callers react to being challenged. It's threatening because I can either shut up and put up with being harassed and bullied, or I can speak up and risk escalation.
posted by Mavri at 1:42 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

I'll admit that I usually have naught but contempt for men who are forever going on about how much men suck and how women sure are wonderful for sharing the planet with us and putting up with all our bullshit etc etc etc but when I read some of the stories women have shared in this thread and the linked post and I think about what I've heard from female friends and family members, I have to say I'm surprised all women aren't openly armed and armored when they leave the house each day. Christ.

(heyho's post made my day though, because I'm also one of the "wide berth" kind of guys that sounds kinda weird)
posted by lord_wolf at 1:42 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'll be shocked if a single woman in this thread says that she interprets catcalls in terms of a "consensual relationship."

not me.
posted by brneyedgrl at 1:43 PM on October 8, 2009

Cat calling by men on the street, directed at women on the street, is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual.

So... the guy that hollered "Daaaaaaaaaaaaamn I bet your pussy tastes good!" to me this morning as I walked to work -- he just wants to be my boyfriend? Is that how I'm supposed to take it?

Ooh, or how about the trio of homeless dudes that followed me for 5 blocks one evening this summer, talking loudly about how they'd like to suck on my big old titties? There was nowhere for me to go (no open businesses to duck into), no other people on the street to witness the escalation, as it went from loud unwanted commentary on my body to even louder unwanted commentary on how I must be a frigid bitch with a dried-up loose vagina because I wasn't responding to their advances, and how maybe they should show me a good time. They just wanted to be my boyfriends too? Is that how I'm supposed to take it?

What about the guy sitting across from me on the bus last week, whose attempt at chatting me up consisted of going, "Yo, girl. Girl. GIRL. You fine. Come sit over here by me. Come on. Girl. Giiiiiiirl. GIRL. Get over here. ....ugly-ass bitch, fuck you!" Another potential suitor, perhaps?

Here's the thing you seem to be missing, Bulgaroktonos -- you say that the prison catcall analogy doesn't work because prison sexual relationships are fundamentally non-consensual. But the way you would feel about a fellow man catcalling you in prison? That's the way women feel about the dudes that holler things at us on the street. Hollering shit on the street is generally not the beginning of a consensual sexual relationship -- in fact I can't remember ever boning a dude who has hollered at me on the street. Maybe I'm missing out, but somehow I doubt it. I think all the ladies who have contributed stories to Hollaback NYC would back me up on that.
posted by palomar at 1:43 PM on October 8, 2009 [49 favorites]

I don't tend to feel threatened merely by being called names, and I've certainly been called names in all kinds of contexts, both threatening and nonthreatening. My initial point, lost ages ago, was that merely shouting sexual language at a woman is not a threat, although it can be in context. It's disrespectful, it's sexist, it's inappropriate, but it is not, in and of itself, threatening.

But you're not a woman. I have to say that you really come across a not wanting to "lose the thread" with your persistence here, because it was explained really clearly exactly why those constructions workers are also threatening here and here. Stop being that guy.

My recommendation is that you show this thread to your wife and see how she feels about it. Maybe she can get through to you.
posted by Caduceus at 1:45 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

"If, instead, you'd been yelling "nice ass!" or "work it!" or "bet you've got a fiiiiiiiine pussy!", then THAT would have been catcalling."

Look, my Korean was just not that good.

(Really, I was thinking more just the "Hey baby!" catcalling, which seemed close enough to "Hello!" But then, the instances where I've actually seen real live catcalling are incredibly few, likely because very few people catcall burly hairy lumberjack dudes.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2009

It's still not nice being grouped in with rapists for no reason other than a similar accident of birth, and I think it made the (otherwise good) article less effective.

I can better see your point, but I think where I'm disagreeing with you is in blaming the article for this particular grouping-in. I can imagine it isn't nice being grouped in with rapists because of an accident of birth -- but, the people to blame for that are those rapists. This article was just telling you about those guys.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

B: What you're not getting is that whistling or yelling sexual language to a woman in public is threatening because the implication is that the woman's body is not her own-- it is public property that anyone may pass judgment on or even possess. Can you think of anything more threatening than saying to a person that their body is not their own?

It's very similar to sexual harassment on the job. Treating a woman as she is a sexual object for anyone's gratification is a fundamentally possessory act. And that is threatening.

You seem to be thinking that threatening should equate to the likelihood that these assholes who whistle are going to actively go out an try to rape the woman. That's not the case. A threat can be a threat without an intent to follow through and rape-- that's when it's called intimidation. And this type of intimidation based on sex is threatening to women because we don't know the intentions of the actor.

That is why some people call this rape culture. The whistlers may not be rapists-- in fact, most of them are not. But they are reinforcing a culture where women are told that their bodies are not their own and there's nothing they can do about it.
posted by miss tea at 1:56 PM on October 8, 2009 [19 favorites]

And klangklangston: Presumably you've since read that "whoops, didn't finish my thought" statement:

Really, I was thinking more just the "Hey baby!" catcalling, which seemed close enough to "Hello!"

A fair point. However, tone also plays into this more often than you'd think it does; there's a difference between

{perky, with a dimpled grin} "Hey, baby!"

and

{leering, with a faint growl} "heyyyyyyy, baby."

I have a feeling your "hello" was closer to the former.

Although, for the record, the last time I got catcalled it was with the more blatant statement "I sure would like to suck your pussy", so hey.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on October 8, 2009

Oh for crying out loud people...I NEVER said the relationship between catcaller and catcallee was consensual.

I said that it "is designed to evoke a type of male-female relationship that, while it may be sexist, is fundamentally consensual." That is to say, the message of the catcall (to the woman) is "let's have sex." That's a message that exists in a context(the world outside prison) where most sexual relationships are consensual. The message of that catcall incorporates that

This was in the VERY narrow context of differentiating it from a hypothetical involving prison, where the dominant type of sexual relationship is (at least in popular culture, and clearly in the mind of the poster) non consensual. It was to explain how the context makes prison catcalling is MORE threatening than the other, and anyone who says it isn't more threatening isn't being intellectually honest.

I'm not really sure how this thread turned into me versus the world about catcalling, so I'll end with a broader point then go home. The type of thinking typified by this article is harmful and morally wrong. It stigmatizes a half the population because a small percentage of them engage in bad behavior. If I wrote an article explaining how black people can stop making white people so afraid of them, I would be rightly pilloried. The fact that men operate from a position of power socially, where as blacks don't, doesn't matter, because we're not talking about broad social interactions, we're talking about alone at the bus stop at night sort of stuff. At that moment, all the white male privilege in the world won't save anyone.

This kind of thinking is harmful because it poisons the relationships between men and women, just as racism poisons the relationships between different races. It's morally wrong because it treats one segment of society as being presumptively "bad" because of a condition they can't control. I'd go so far as to say that it's dangerous, because the more men are cast as rapists, the more men will be convicted of rape, including innocent men. A reasonable concern for your safety is one thing, paranoia is quite another. Paranoia is bad for society, and bad for the people who suffer from it.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:03 PM on October 8, 2009

This kind of thinking is harmful because it poisons the relationships between men and women, just as racism poisons the relationships between different races. It's morally wrong because it treats one segment of society as being presumptively "bad" because of a condition they can't control. I'd go so far as to say that it's dangerous, because the more men are cast as rapists, the more men will be convicted of rape, including innocent men. A reasonable concern for your safety is one thing, paranoia is quite another. Paranoia is bad for society, and bad for the people who suffer from it.

And -- for the umpteenth time - if you truly, honestly, and sincerely have a problem with the fact that some women are leery of being approached by strangers, the best way to combat that problem is by talking to the men who are perpetuating the problem. This article is only explaining the problem.

It's your fellow men who are creating the problem. Go talk to them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:07 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

"It's still not nice being grouped in with ~~rapists~~ potential rape victims for no reason other than a similar accident of birth, and I think it made the (otherwise good) ~~article~~ entire life less ~~effective~~ safe.
posted by cereselle at 2:07 PM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

the message of the catcall is not "let's have sex" It's about "let me comment on your body without your consent, let bring attention to you even tho you don't want it, let me endanger you to the general public, let me disrect you because I can".....so it's not consensual at all. and I say "you are an idiot."
posted by brneyedgrl at 2:12 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

uh, that should be "disrespect"
posted by brneyedgrl at 2:13 PM on October 8, 2009

You know what I find really intriguing?

If you come up to me on the train or in a coffee shop or in a bar or on the sidewalk and smile and say hello, I'll likely smile right back and talk to you. I'm chatty like that when I feel safe.

If you do any of those things to my girlfriend Julie, she'll likely shake in her shoes. She's stunning to look at, she's smart as hell, and she's not usually a timid woman. But on the occasion of a birthday party attended by a gaggle of girls, the subject of rape came up -- a few bottles of wine into the party.

We were all taking at the same time, most of us sharing stories of attacks, near-attacks, some close calls, and the like, when Julie just started crying. It wasn't over my story, because I didn't have the scariest story -- not by a longshot, sadly. It took us a while, but she eventually admitted that she was terrified all the time because she hadn't been raped.

After some discussion, it turns out that she feels her number is about to come up every time she steps outside. Nearly all of her friends have been raped. It's made her completely paranoid. There are as many ways to think about this shit as there are people in the world.

If you really doubt the numbers, get together with a bunch of women in a safe place, bring a bunch of wine, and sit back and listen to what they'll tell you. One in four? BullSHIT. I think that number is higher.
posted by heyho at 2:14 PM on October 8, 2009 [70 favorites]

My only contribution is anecdotal evidence.
I am a female, and not a very big one at that. I have always known that I am not physically strong. As such, for as long as I can recall, I have always been keenly aware of my surroundings when I am in situations that could potentially be risky to my person.
I am not afraid - fear is not an issue - that rarely comes into play, but I am super-alert. I also make a point of not making eye contact with men in public, and I suffer from discriminatory deafness. If I hear whistles, catcalls, etc., I do not respond in any fashion. Under very limited circumstances would I allow a male stranger to talk to me in public. I have a very high barrier for engagement with strangers, and I have absolutely no doubt that it is owing to the fact that I am a skinny-ass chick. I guarantee if I were male, it would be different.
This is not necessarily a daily occurrence, because I work at home, but it is so thoroughly ingrained in who I am that I rarely even think about it consciously, and examined it today in detail owing to this thread.
Just sayin'.
posted by msali at 2:14 PM on October 8, 2009

This kind of thinking is harmful because it poisons the relationships between men and women

Dude.

Rape and sexual violence poison the relationships between men and women.

Harassment poisons the relationships between men and women.

Putting your fingers over your ears and singing "LALALALALALALALA" and refusing to listen to the women who are spelling this shit out poisons the relationships between men and women.

Any fear/trepidation/mistrust that we have is the effect, not the cause. I really cannot see how we could make these points any simpler for you.
posted by hegemone at 2:17 PM on October 8, 2009 [30 favorites]

I don't see that an article pointing out exactly how men can avoid sending threatening signals to women constitutes "paranoia."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:17 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

On the subject of cat-calling: I've been yelled at on the street, I've been yelled at from men in cars, I've been yelled at by men who pull up next to me when I'm driving. I've also had a carful of high school football players pull up in a car next to me while I was walking at night and start yelling. It starts with "Hey baby" and then it goes to "Come here" and then "Give me a blow job" and then they stop the car and get out. I yelled all the obscenities I knew at them and ran.

So the fact that some people seem to be saying that yelling sexual statements at women isn't at all threatening when it's the first step towards assault just boggles the mind. Aren't they basically yelling "I want to fuck you, I want to fuck you, I want to fuck you?" How many times would someone have to say that to a stranger before that person becomes creepy and dangerous to you?
posted by threeturtles at 2:18 PM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos: The fact that men operate from a position of power socially, where as blacks don't, doesn't matter, because we're not talking about broad social interactions, we're talking about alone at the bus stop at night sort of stuff. At that moment, all the white male privilege in the world won't save anyone.

Again, that is not the part of the analogy that fails. The part of the analogy that fails is that women, who are not in a position of power at the time of the conversation about it, are asking men not to be scary. White dudes telling black dudes not to be scary is the opposite of that.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:19 PM on October 8, 2009

I'm not really sure how this thread turned into me versus the world about catcalling, so I'll end with a broader point then go home. The type of thinking typified by this article is harmful and morally wrong. It stigmatizes a half the population because a small percentage of them engage in bad behavior. If I wrote an article explaining how black people can stop making white people so afraid of them, I would be rightly pilloried. The fact that men operate from a position of power socially, where as blacks don't, doesn't matter, because we're not talking about broad social interactions, we're talking about alone at the bus stop at night sort of stuff. At that moment, all the white male privilege in the world won't save anyone.

This kind of thinking is harmful because it poisons the relationships between men and women, just as racism poisons the relationships between different races. It's morally wrong because it treats one segment of society as being presumptively "bad" because of a condition they can't control. I'd go so far as to say that it's dangerous, because the more men are cast as rapists, the more men will be convicted of rape, including innocent men. A reasonable concern for your safety is one thing, paranoia is quite another. Paranoia is bad for society, and bad for the people who suffer from it.

Bulgaroktonos, either you're being deliberately obtuse or your reading comprehension is shit, because you've once again completely misinterpreted the article and about half the comments in this thread, which have been trying to explain how that's not at all what the article is saying. Quite frankly I don't think it can be explained any more clearly. You're still making it all about you and completely failing to understand the perspective of the women in this thread and women in general. It's probably best that you leave the thread, because at this point, I have to conclude that you're either an idiot or an asshole, and either way you're beyond help. I feel sorry for your wife.
posted by Caduceus at 2:20 PM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos, this thread turned into you vs the world re: catcalling because you've positioned yourself as the great defender of catcalling. You keep telling the women commenting on this thread that it's not a big deal, it's not threatening, it's meant to be complimentary if somewhat sexist, it's meant to "evoke the feeling of a fundamentally consensual sexual relationship", et cetera.

No matter how many women comment here that they personally feel threatened by catcalling, that it IS a big deal, it doesn't feel complimentary, it feels scary and gross and yes, threatening, you insist that we're wrong. We're overreacting, we're wrong to feel the way that we feel, we're paranoid, this kind of thinking is dangerous to society and poisons the goodwill between women and men.

What you're doing here is a textbook example of men telling women how to think. It's demeaning, it's insulting, it's sexist, and it's just plain fucked up.
posted by palomar at 2:22 PM on October 8, 2009 [40 favorites]

darksasami: And because of the way you're presenting this, I'm not going to read your discussion, or even the rest of your comment.

First of all, it's not my discussion. In fact, out of over 4,000 comments there, I made two. Possibly three.

Second, because you find me offensive, you're not going to bother to read something that's been hugely influential in opening a lot of men's eyes to a world they didn't, and couldn't, see before? I'm not being condescending; it's right there in their comments. That's excellent logic on how to approach this subject. Shoot the messenger, and while you're at it, burn the message.

Maybe I should. Maybe it would be good for me. Maybe you have something interesting to say. But no matter how eminently right you are, you simply can't behave this way and expect to be listened to.

The tone argument. Here is a good explanation of why the tone argument is entitled bullshit. (Just substitute "misogyny" for "racism" in the article.) How dare I speak so bluntly? How dare I refuse to defer to your desire not to be confronted with my thoroughly valid, justifiable rage?

To paraphrase a post from the racism discussion I referred to earlier:

Predictable as the sunrise, some man somewhere in a discussion on misogyny, sexism, and rape will say, "But you'd get progress on all of this/more allies/more sympathy/whatever if only you didn't speak so angrily!" Surprise, being the object of this hateful culture pisses women off. Dealing with clueless males trying on their new, brilliant argument that women have only heard for the 5,675th time this week is annoying and tiring. And when you, the man, demand that woman modulate her tone to you when she is talking about how misogyny/sexism/rape makes them feel, you are asserting your privileged "right" to control the conversation.

You are asking women to cater to your wishes. In a discussion about women. What is that if not male privilege?

Me: We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us.

and hosted from Uranus: You have a funny definition for conversation.

If you had read on, you would have seen that I specified that I (and many other white people) did take part in the conversation with POCs, by asking them lots and lots of questions. What I didn't do was give them my opinion on their lives, because they don't have to listen to me; I have to listen to them. I have nothing to offer in a conversation about what it means to be a POC in this world. All I can do is try to learn.

For those of you (and I believe there are only two) who are calling me a troll, that's a very easy way to dismiss what I'm saying. Metafilter has seen a lot of trolling. This isn't what it looks like.

languagehat: Great post, great link, and despite the occasional glitches in the thread there's only one guy who's being a complete unredeemable dick (naming no names) and in general it's going pretty well, so I'm tentatively feeling like MeFi's come a long way in the last couple of years.

I entirely agree. Good on ya, languagehat.
posted by tzikeh at 2:23 PM on October 8, 2009 [14 favorites]

> The type of thinking typified by this article is harmful and morally wrong.

No, the type of thinking typified by your obtuse series of bullheaded comments is harmful and morally wrong. You are making women's lives just that little bit harder by your foolish refusal to rethink your preconceptions. Other men who started from an equally obtuse position managed to learn from the various similar threads we have had; they actually listened to what women had to say, put their reflex reactions aside, and realized they had been wrong. You, with your ungrounded self-confidence and need to not "lose the thread" (as someone said), seem to be unable to do that. Your loss, of course, but our loss as well.
posted by languagehat at 2:24 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

Bulgaroktonos, it became you vs. the world because you made it so.
posted by sandraregina at 2:28 PM on October 8, 2009

I tried to post on Shapely Prose, but I didn't pass moderation. So, I'll just say it here. What is the assumption that leads people to believe that the male character in the XKCD comic has any sexual interest in the female character?

The non-sexists reading of this comic goes like this, nerd boy is paralyzed with fear of being called a creep, when all he wants to do is talk about her cute netbook. This is sad because the nerd girl is doing her best to signal her interest in talking with him, but he doesn't notice because he's a typical nerd and isn't great with these kind of cues.

What I seem to be hearing from the "feminists" is that the only reason he wants to talk to her is because he's only interested in sex like, of course, all men are, and this girl couldn't possibly be interested in talking to him because women just want to be left alone.
posted by betaray at 2:28 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Hey. For the record, I was never accusing anyone of lying. I was just asserting that someone was saying something that he or she knew to be false.
posted by xmutex at 2:28 PM on October 8, 2009

I'd go so far as to say that it's dangerous, because the more men are cast as rapists, the more men will be convicted of rape, including innocent men.

There it is! This is the part where we need to worry more about men who might get wrongly convicted of rape more than women who are actually raped!

If I had a bingo card I think I would win.
posted by rtha at 2:28 PM on October 8, 2009 [47 favorites]

And here is why the fact that the tone argument is entitled bullshit doesn't matter: because I still have the ability to choose to ignore what you're saying. Whether you're right or wrong, I still have the choice. Whether I should have the choice or not, I still have the choice. In fact, it sucks complete ass that I have the choice not to listen to people who are right about things that are important. But I still have the choice.

I think you are right about a great many things. But the way you are saying them makes me -- involuntarily, as a gut reaction -- want you to be wrong. Is that, in the end, helpful to your cause?
posted by darksasami at 2:30 PM on October 8, 2009

Errant: Women don't get to walk away from this conversation; this conversation follows them home. If you care about women, you don't walk away either, because you can't begin to live in the same world as the women you love if you walk away from their reality.

I cannot even begin to improve upon this. Word.
posted by hubbit at 2:31 PM on October 8, 2009

betaray: What I seem to be hearing from the "feminists" is that the only reason he wants to talk to her is because he's only interested in sex like, of course, all men are, and this girl couldn't possibly be interested in talking to him because women just want to be left alone.

Well, I'm just going to quote the article linked in the FPP:

"Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible...."

"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."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:32 PM on October 8, 2009

This has been a very thought provoking thread, and I suddenly feel like I have no idea how to deal with strangers in public anymore.

I understand your feeling, but I think the important message to take away is simple, and that you probably already know it:

Other people are autonomous individuals. While they arguably have a social duty to uphold minimal civil interaction in public spaces, no one is required to engage with a stranger's advances, even when those advances are nonsexual.

That is: when I initiate friendly conversation with strangers, I keep in mind that they have no responsibility to mirror my willingness to talk. They have no responsibility to chat with me or to flirt with me.

As the initiator, I should be alert for signs that they would not welcome the conversation, or that they're trying to exit the conversation once it's started: looking away, looking at their book or newspaper or phone or shoes, giving terse responses to my chatter, or otherwise indicating that they are not eagerly engaging. And then I politely give them a chance to get out of the conversation with no hard feelings.

As I remarked above, and as several people have echoed in this thread and in other threads, that's the X factor in male-female* street interactions: the pursued doesn't know how the pursuer will react to a rebuff.

*I would argue that this is the biggest tension in any street encounter between strangers, but that in male-female interaction, the tension is heightened by institutional sexism, by the typical inequality of physical strength between the participants, by the individual woman's indoctrinated caution against strange men, and by a host of other factors.

It's the cheerful willingness of intrusive strangers to disregard these cues and clues that puts me on my guard. If a stranger disregards or misses a whole series of socially accepted clues, I start wondering what other clues and social boundaries they will disregard or miss. I get wary --- not so much of their intent as of their ability to gauge another person's boundaries.
posted by Elsa at 2:33 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

xmutex: "Hey. For the record, I was never accusing anyone of lying. I was just asserting that someone was saying something that he or she knew to be false."

Why are you doing this?
posted by minifigs at 2:37 PM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

pointless as it is to say this, thank you everyone for your stories and intelligence.

this is the most incredible thread i`ve yet read on metafilter.
i feel hopeless and poisoned and informed and i just want to cry and go get therapy.

and that is not a bad thing.
posted by artof.mulata at 2:42 PM on October 8, 2009

What a fantastic thread, and what a fucked-up species. Thanks Empress, heyho, and everyone else. This is why I love MeFi like I do.
posted by everichon at 2:43 PM on October 8, 2009

I mean, really. WTF is up with this, "I don't know how to behave in public anymore" crud when the basic suggestions advocated are:

1: be presentable
2: be polite when approaching strangers
3: pay attention to body language and back off if she's not interested
4: recognize that if you get the brush-off, it's probably not about you as an individual.

I mean, really, you could get 1-3 from Jane Fucking Austin. This isn't radical feminism or postmodern here.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:43 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

Hey. For the record, I was never accusing anyone of lying. I was just asserting that someone was saying something that he or she knew to be false.

Is this sarcasm? I can't even tell. Goodness I hope so, if only for your sake.
posted by hegemone at 2:46 PM on October 8, 2009

KirkJobSluder: Sure, that's great advice (although not saying anything unless a person is facing directly toward you and looking you in the eye seems a bit of a high standard, but I digress...), but not proceeding when getting a green light seems quite a bit different than claims, as the article referencing the XKCD comic on Shapely Prose puts it, the comic says that "it (sic) just fine to perpetuate rape culture"
posted by betaray at 2:52 PM on October 8, 2009

This has been a very thought provoking thread, and I suddenly feel like I have no idea how to deal with strangers in public anymore.

In all sincerity, try re-reading the original article not as feminism, but as a guide to how to successfully approach women you don't know in public. I'm surprised at the hostility of a few guys here -- maybe I'm crazy but I thought I detected a note of "Help me out here guys, I really would like to know which of you are cool enough to talk to -- here's how to show me."

I'm not anybody's rapist.

I'm not sure you're understanding the reference. The Schrodinger's Cat paradox -- very loosely -- is an experiment where a cat inside a box may or may not be dead, based on random atomic decay. You only know if the cat is dead or alive once you open the box.

I believe that the author is analogizing strange men who approach her in public to just such a box, that may or may not cotain a rapist. She only "opens the box" by engaging the man in conversation. Even if the probability of him being a rapist is small, it makes sense that she would not want to open it in most circumstances.
posted by msalt at 2:52 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

I think you are right about a great many things. But the way you are saying them makes me -- involuntarily, as a gut reaction -- want you to be wrong. Is that, in the end, helpful to your cause?

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, but it's not "my" cause. If you are someone who cares about women, it is your cause too. And, of course, as we've seen in this thread, it's also about how men are perceived and treated. Do you want to be the kind of person who decides what to think based on spite? That won't hurt my or anyone else's cause, but it will hurt you.
posted by rtha at 2:54 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 19:

"When I do myself the honour of speaking to you next on the subject, I shall hope to receive a more favourable answer than you have now given me; though I am far from accusing you of cruelty at present, because I know it to be the established custom of your sex to reject a man on the first application, and perhaps you have even now said as much to encourage my suit as would be consistent with the true delicacy of the female character."

"Really, Mr. Collins," cried Elizabeth with some warmth, "you puzzle me exceedingly. If what I have hitherto said can appear to you in the form of encouragement, I know not how to express my refusal in such a way as to convince you of its being one."

"You must give me leave to flatter myself, my dear cousin, that your refusal of my addresses is merely words of course. My reasons for believing it are briefly these: ... As I must therefore conclude that you are not serious in your rejection of me, I shall choose to attribute it to your wish of increasing my love by suspense, according to the usual practice of elegant females."

"I do assure you, sir, that I have no pretensions whatever to that kind of elegance which consists in tormenting a respectable man. I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere. I thank you again and again for the honour you have done me in your proposals, but to accept them is absolutely impossible. My feelings in every respect forbid it. Can I speak plainer? Do not consider me now as an elegant female, intending to plague you, but as a rational creature, speaking the truth from her heart."

"You are uniformly charming!" cried he, with an air of awkward gallantry; "and I am persuaded that when sanctioned by the express authority of both your excellent parents, my proposals will not fail of being acceptable."

To such perseverance in wilful self-deception Elizabeth would make no reply, and immediately and in silence withdrew; determined, if he persisted in considering her repeated refusals as flattering encouragement, to apply to her father, whose negative might be uttered in such a manner as to be decisive, and whose behavior at least could not be mistaken for the affectation and coquetry of an elegant female.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:58 PM on October 8, 2009 [73 favorites]

darksasami: And here is why the fact that the tone argument is entitled bullshit doesn't matter

But it does matter; it's part and parcel of the subject at hand. The fact that you want me to be wrong (and I get what you mean here) because you don't like the way I'm saying things is a form of sexism that is so deeply embedded in our language and social interaction that most people are entirely unaware of it. It's part of the "if a man says x, he's assertive; if a woman says x, she's a bitch" branch of the misogyny tree.

Is that, in the end, helpful to your cause?

The fact that the tone argument has come up and I can address where people can read it and think about it, it is helpful. So, yes.

Thank you for saying that you think some of what I'm saying has merit. Generally, when these threads come up here, I post one or two comments and then weary so quickly, because I don't think I'll make even a tiny drop of difference. I've been called out more than once with, "Well, if we're so stupid and we don't "get it" and you're so smart, why don't you explain it?"

The fact that I've made some insane number of comments on this thread, and haven't even scratched the surface, is why I don't "explain it." It can't be explained by one person in one thread. It's so powerful, and so pervasive, and there are books and classes available for people to learn more if they're willing to accept that there might be more here than they thought. But when I point that out, the usual response is a sarcastic, "Well, we don't have time to read a book/take a class, so why don't you just sum it up for us?"

I still don't think I've explained it--not even close. But at least this time I'm not walking away in impotent fury.
posted by tzikeh at 3:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

Anecdotally, even though I'm a male over 6'1" and 220 lbs who walks confidently and have never been assaulted in my life, I still check out almost everyone I see on the street as a potential threat to the point where crowds tire me slightly. Because at the end of the day, I'm no more immune to being knifed, shot, or tasered and raped than someone half my size. Some of the precautions the author takes are not ones that I would, because they'd only help find the person who assaulted or killed her. I'm a little interested in society retaliating if I'm victimized, but mostly I just want to survive with my physical and mental health.

So this is one guy who understands hypervigilance. BTW, pepper spray is light and easy to carry.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:01 PM on October 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

The fact that you want me to be wrong (and I get what you mean here) because you don't like the way I'm saying things is a form of sexism that is so deeply embedded in our language and social interaction that most people are entirely unaware of it. It's part of the "if a man says x, he's assertive; if a woman says x, she's a bitch" branch of the misogyny tree.

I think it can be, but I don't think that's necessarily the case here. Phrases like "I don't have to listen to you" are so dismissive that I think a lot of people would automatically discount anything that follows them regardless of your gender. If we were arguing about religion or politics or something and you said, "You have to listen to me, I don't have to listen to you," I'd probably break the conversation off whether or not I even knew your gender.

This isn't meant as an attack, by the way, because I did read all of your comments, and you make very good points. But tone does matter – even if it shouldn't – and can't always be reduced to the "assertive man vs. bitchy woman" brand of societal misogyny, especially in an online forum like Metafilter where gender isn't apparent.
posted by infinitywaltz at 3:08 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I think Bulgaroktonos' point started off by saying there are levels of threats and cat-calling is different from directly waving a knife at someone. It went weird because of his refusal to see it as emotionally confusing / harassy. I think a lot of this conversation has gone weird because we're getting bogged down in odd swamps. Is there anyone who really disagrees with "people have the right to be wary of any stranger they deem being-wary-worthy of?" Sure it may be intellectually problematic depending on what they're responding to but on a personal level this should really be easy.

The issue about men being victims of physical violence isn't really unconnected to why women get annoyed/flustered/alarmed about being turned into sex objects against their will. To some degree it's the same as a man calling another man out when the other man doesn't want to fight—a really confusing, annoying moment. Doesn't mean you don't know how to deal with it but there's a bunch of factors that play into why you're uncomfortable by your refusal or agreement to engaging that "let's fight" dynamic.

Arguably, though, the men who have a level of self-awareness and the habit of being observant of others' body language are probably not the same men who have difficulty in this area.
— EmpressCallipygos

Empress, I'd like to start by thanking you for always being fair in these types of threads instead of going the "read 200 pages then you'll know why everything you've learned in life is wrong" route or the whole "i'm going to drag in a bunch of politically-loaded phrases in here and analogize your behaviour to it route." That said I don't understand this comment at all. Men who aren't scared when they're walking around are the scary ones? They're not related. I walk around areas at times people tell me not to *and* I don't walk into women's personal spaces.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 3:22 PM on October 8, 2009

Sorry, rtha -- I had, in my hubris, thought I was typing fast enough to post right after tzikeh. I was, as always, a fool. It was part of the conversation about her claim that "We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us. Nothing you have to say has any bearing," and my reaction -- and the reaction of many people like me -- to it. I think I can state without fear of contradiction that there are many people, male and female, who would react badly to being told something like that.

And I agree completely that yes, reacting in this way is hurtful to me, you, my gender, and your gender. It's also the way many humans react regardless. This is something that sucks but that should be taken into account.

Tzikeh: The fact that you want me to be wrong (and I get what you mean here) because you don't like the way I'm saying things is a form of sexism

Hang on, stop right there, because it's not sexism. I don't care what's between your legs, if anybody tells me that I have to shut up and listen, I'm going to balk. I'm quite serious here when I say that I can't really assign a gender role to what I perceive only as a few paragraphs of white text on a blue background without really working at it; I can barely grok that you're a human at all, much less a female. (Interestingly, on reflection, my perception might be different if you had had a traditionally feminine handle.) So even if my own deeply entrenched sexism (which I own is present, in the same way as "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist") is coming into it, it's hardly the dominant force at work.

All I'm saying is that nobody likes being told "Shut up, you don't get to talk." Women fighting the patriarchy, probably more than anyone else in the world, should understand that feeling.
posted by darksasami at 3:22 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

So how can women and understanding men rationalize (nevermind explain) the idea of a different/better way? The idea that cat-callers create an environment of fear that lowers the romantic opportunity for all seems to have the seed of some kind of explanation, but it seems like a drop in the ocean of male ambition. (Not trying to be all game theoretic, but let's be honest, we're all part animal here)

A) there's lots of feminist writing out there about why men catcall/the existence of patriarchy, not really room for all of that here, but I suggest you Google "feminism 101" posts--lots of feminist blogs have created those, they give you a place to start reading.

B)The article gives pretty good tips on how not to look like/act like a potential rapist.

I wanted to post again because I wanted to say, the despair and sadness many of you feel who are first realizing what it's like for women is familliar. It is kind of like what Ia lot of women go through as they grow up--I know I did. I was so sad and afraid, once I understood what rape was, for a very long time. Of all men/boys. Of the world being so fucked up and dangerous for me because I was female.

But then I got angry. And then later, I started fighting back by educating myself and speaking up, calling out those who enabled this kind of crap etc. etc.

And most importantly, I decided not to let fear ruin my life. I go out. I take some risks. I don't assume all men are rapists, or even most men. I married, I'm raising a son; clearly, I do not think men are the problem. There are lots of theories about why sexism/patriarchy developed, all of them make for fascinating conversation, but in the end, culture is what we force it to become. However long and slow that fight may be. I can't fight if I'm locked up in a room. I can't let the rapists/misogynists take my life from me by making me afraid all the time. So as much as possible, I don't.

Oppression of women is real, and we hate it, but we are not destroyed. We're pretty tough survivors, most of us. We have to be. The men who want to be our allies are welcome. We only ask that they believe us when we tell them the truth.
posted by emjaybee at 3:25 PM on October 8, 2009 [14 favorites]

Another reason this "you don't get to talk" thing is confusing is because it's strange to call men pricks because they're the ones trying to understand something. You don't get to force a conception onto anyone or legitimize it by default just because you have it. So when "explain this to me" is followed by "fuck you for asking me to explain this to you, i don't have to explain to you, shut up and listen" I don't understand why the addressee's reaction shouldn't be "forget it" rather than starry-eyed "you're right!"
posted by Non Prosequitur at 3:26 PM on October 8, 2009

"Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her."

Given this criteria, there are no circumstances under which I could appropriately approach a woman. Or most men. I'm one of the large scary guys. I tend to give women a wide birth.
That or in close quarters I yawn a lot. Hum classical music. Especially if I'm carrying a package. I figure if someone won't feel threatened by the severe looking muscular guy if he's falling down sleepy and into Chopin. Like maybe I'm a roadie for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra or something.

“I know this article is not about me, but it still rankles a little, you know?”

Better directed at the assheads engaging in or tacitly encouraging the behavior by remaining passive. I have to say I don’t care for painting all men with the same brushstroke in some of the statements (broadly speaking - e.g. the cereta.livejournal link - my "battalion/troop/whatever" saved quite a few women where the "thin veneer of civilization was lifted". So I feel pretty comfortable most of the time.) and there is some incongruity/referential oddity there ("Sweet Machine"? And "Phaedra"? Ok, she can't help if that's her name, but man, if you know that story... )

But I think the exceptions for individual males were ceded in the piece and the appeal was to the ignorance of who ‘you’ are of any given woman.
So I took it more of an indictment of the environment.
In which, I have to agree, there are no bystanders. So it’s a legitimate beef and I can see the anger when men try to distance themselves.
Yeah it's a gender issue. But it's a human issue. Deny your own involvement and you cede that much of your humanity.

“I tend to go out with my wife and our scrawny spineless nerd friend, who intimidates less than zero people”
Bulgaroktonos, why don't I come over unannounced and I can fuck your wife properly for you. She probably deserves a real man like myself.

Flattered by that invitation to a kind of sexual relationship? I'm assuming your wife is attractive sight unseen. Hey, I was just asking. You could always say no. It would be an invitation to a consensual relationship, no?
Now if it's not clear, that somewhat offensive statement was made with a purpose beyond trolling, and hopefully it illustrates the ambiguity in interpretation (am I currying favor for favorites? trying to "pay a compliment in a retarded way" or projecting dominance or seeking to usurp or change the nature of your relationship? Maybe I'm just a dick.
Whatever the case, if you're not into the whole cuckold thing, it probably made you uncomfortable in your sexuality and less self-possessed. Or would were I standing in front of you and your scrawny friends.
In any case - I see no legitimate situation in which one stranger can impose him/herself on another in that way.

I myself have never groped a woman. I have had a homosexual man (apparently drunk or high) grope my ass. And I punched him in response. Being offended as a heterosexual never occurred to me. Given the area and circumstances it was legitimate for him to presume I was gay (and no, it wasn't in prison). I don't think I look gay - but then, wtf would I know since I'm not? My response was predicated only on his presumptive behavior and gross violation of what I consider to be legitimate interpersonal interaction. I thought he had a little jab in the face coming. (So did he because he got up looking sorry.)

It is, in most cases, not an option most women have open to them (and no necessarily an ideal response in any case, just my, perhaps understandable, reflex).
Therefore - any recourse has to be less physical but equally communicative and assertive in nature.

That recourse, part of it, is what's being seen now. This essay (and most certainly the other from cereta) is that akin to that punch in the face. Engaging in rhetorical gainsaying is akin to throwing down, going to dukes afterwards.
Well hell man, what is it you're defending? You can grab my ass if you want and I'm a homophobe if I don't let you?
Because there are consensual homosexual relationships. But why should I have to stand for a personal invasion of any kind that looks to define my sexuality in a way other than how I want?

Hell, I'm teaching my daughter she doesn't have to give me any of her blueberries if she wants to eat them all and I'm her father.
Think I'm going to let her take shit from some jagoff thinks he's got the right to impose his sexual hangups publicly?

There's a difference between power and control. Just because a catcall or some such might not directly control some individual woman's actions doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to influence her, or women in general, in other ways.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

Hey. For the record, I was never accusing anyone of lying. I was just asserting that someone was saying something that he or she knew to be false.

Flagged as trolling.

This thread has been a mostly civil discussion on a highly emotionally charged topic. You're not helping.
posted by zarq at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2009

On a somewhat related note: I wonder how much this situational fear is amplified further by the constant looks from men that women get. It's got to be quite disconcerting to have people constantly trying to surreptitiously look at you, especially given the subtext of trying to guess what their intentions are.
posted by jsonic at 3:44 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

That said I don't understand this comment at all. Men who aren't scared when they're walking around are the scary ones? They're not related. I walk around areas at times people tell me not to *and* I don't walk into women's personal spaces.

My lack of clarity -- what I was trying to say was that the men who have enough of an awareness of themselves to know how others might perceive them, and enough of an awareness of others' body language to be able to pick up others' body language cues, probably don't need to be told "don't do X Y and Z because it creeps people out", because they have probably already figured that out for themselves.

Now -- I had a thought about the argument that "this article just perpetuates the idea that all men are potential rapists. To wit:

Every so often, a weatherman in an area that is facing the threat of a hurricane will do a weather piece explaining the potential power of that hurricane, and also explaining to viewers how to protect themselves and what preventative measures they need to take. Now -- if someone watches this weather piece and becomes frightened of that impending hurricane, you would you hold the weatherman at fault for creating "fear of hurricanes" in that viewer? Or, would you accuse the weatherman of creating that hurricane itself?

Of course not. The existence of the hurricane is a separate issue. The weatherman is just explaining the nature of that hurricane, and is expaining how to react to it. The person afraid of the hurricane isn't afraid because "oh, mercy, Al Roker is just trying to scare me!" No - they're afraid because "Jesus Christ, it's a hurricane!"

This article, and the testimonies of women you've heard in here, are like the weatherman. We are explaining the nature of the hurricane to you, and giving you the storm-prep tips so you can cope with it. But the article itself is not like the hurricane. The actions of other men are like the hurricane.

So accusing this article of perpetuating this "paranoia" is like accusing Al Roker of causing hurricanes by blowing real hard.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:44 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Seconding the pepper spray, fwiw. Stings like hell (I've done it to myself).

That commenter long ago who talked about buying a drink in a glass bottle to use in case she got attacked: no. Buy some spray. It's tiny.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:46 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

ouch! I have a degree in physics...

I am really not trying to derail this into being about me or my feelings. Nobody that doesn't know me has any reason to trust me. I think I'm looking at this article from a completely different (and potentially wrong) angle, though.

Women's behaviour is rational, and I am not going to be offended if someone doesn't want to be alone in a lift with me. That's life, life sucks sometimes. There is no possible way that women's behaviour is the problem here.

Men's behaviour is rational: if you approach enough people, the odds are on your side. The article even makes it clear that it's OK to approach people, and OK to get turned down.

There is clearly a problem with normal men approaching women in ways that seem friendly/charming to the man, and creepy/threatening to the woman. This is a problem with men's behaviour.

I'm fairly sure that I'm in a hole and digging furiously, and no-one on MeFi has any reason to think I'm not the enemy here, but...

As a random guy on a dark street, walking behind you, I am Schrodinger's rapist. I understand, and I try not to be in that situation, and I have no problem if you avoid me in that situation.

As a random guy reading a feminist blog post, I don't need to be informed that I'm a potential rapist. I know I am, I can't help it. It will never go away.

So, if women's behaviour isn't the problem, and men's behaviour is, then men's behaviour needs to change. Most of the article was a brilliant guide to how and why, and in the middle there was a bit which seemed almost designed to make men say "hey, fuck YOU buddy!". I'm pretty sure that that is where the hostility comes from. If the aim is to convince men to change their behaviour (or, as seems more likely, to change the behaviour of men that don't read articles like this), that bit is... I don't know what it is, because I don't want to downplay the truth of it, but in this particular article it seems to distract from the overall message.

Anyhow, this thread has made me think too much about things I don't like to think about, so thank you to everyone. Night.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 3:46 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

All I'm saying is that nobody likes being told "Shut up, you don't get to talk."

It's absolutely true that no one likes it. I didn't like it when I encountered it in a wide-ranging, months-spanning discussion about racism. It pissed me right the hell off. However, the more posts and comments I read, the more I realized that it was, in fact, true that, in a discussion of racism, my job was to shut up. I don't get to talk when it comes to the subject of what it is to be black in a white world. I don't get an opinion. I can ask questions, I can respond to a post to see if I understand the point clearly, I can apologize for my own blindness, I can relate anecdotes that I never realized, at the time, were racist, but thanks to all of the discussion about racism, I now know were, but I don't get to talk. I get to listen.
posted by tzikeh at 3:51 PM on October 8, 2009 [10 favorites]

Another reason this "you don't get to talk" thing is confusing is because it's strange to call men pricks because they're the ones trying to understand something.

Your formulation, of course, implies that women aren't trying to understand anything, but I'll assume that's not what you meant.

No one's calling men pricks because they're trying to understand something. Sometimes, some people call some men pricks because those men are trying to make the conversation about the eureka moment for those men, instead of about listening to and understanding the experiences of women.

Sometimes, some people call some men pricks because those men have an attitude of, "well, you finally got my attention, I'm listening, start over and speak slowly, and when I don't understand or like something you said, I want you to stop while I explain in great detail how I don't get it and therefore you're wrong, and if you can't convince me you're not wrong then obviously I've enlightened you, as it should be. You're welcome."

See, that's not all men. That might not even be most men. Sometimes, it's some men; sometimes it's me. It isn't cause for revulsion over half the population, and only men are afraid that it might be. It's just a friendly reminder to...well, you know the phrase by now.

Most of the article was a brilliant guide to how and why, and in the middle there was a bit which seemed almost designed to make men say "hey, fuck YOU buddy!".

So there's two options, right? One is that this brilliant guide swerves in the middle and, by "design", attempts to alienate thoroughly its target audience, destroying on purpose any goodwill / enlightenment it hoped to generate.

The other is that the brilliant guide contains some inconvenient truths which are difficult to hear, and so people who have the luxury of turning a blind eye to the issue seize upon that difficulty as a reason to be unmoved by the entire uncomfortable enterprise.

Ok, that's not fair, I obviously think its option B, you got me.
posted by Errant at 3:57 PM on October 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

True story from my college days: I pick up my friend, who knows I've had a bad crush on her for years, to take her out for her birthday. She's drinking wine, and I say, "Can I have a taste?" and she takes a swig and kisses me. We go out dancing and she gets pretty plastered, but I don't drink too much because I'm driving.

When we get back to her house, we go into her bedroom, and she goes int to the bathroom and takes a shower. She comes out with only a towel around her head and crawls under the covers, then asks me for a massage. This leads to very heavy petting until she has an orgasm, then she suddenly crisps up and tells me to leave, and I leave.

The next day, she asks me to come over, meets me at the door, and gives me a handful of small gifts I've given her, t-shirts and such. By the next week, I discover that she's been telling the other girls in our circle that I raped her.

Am I a rapist?
posted by Jimmy Havok at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

I think what is missing is an article on how women can learn to srike-up a conversation with an unknown male, rather than how to quash any attempts at interpersonal conversation. I have always respected women's space, but, depending upon context, this is frequently interpreted by them as disinterest, while the more pushy-type male (friends of mine, sometimes) move right in and get phone numbers. Perhaps if women were more contrasting in when they wanted attention and when they didn't, rather than being wilting violets most of the time, then they wouldn't complain there are no good men around because only jerks will approach them.
posted by Veridicality at 4:02 PM on October 8, 2009

tzikeh: To paraphrase a post from the racism discussion I referred to earlier:
Predictable as the sunrise, some man somewhere in a discussion on misogyny, sexism, and rape will say, "But you'd get progress on all of this/more allies/more sympathy/whatever if only you didn't speak so angrily!" Surprise, being the object of this hateful culture pisses women off. Dealing with clueless males trying on their new, brilliant argument that women have only heard for the 5,675th time this week is annoying and tiring. And when you, the man, demand that woman modulate her tone to you when she is talking about how misogyny/sexism/rape makes them feel, you are asserting your privileged "right" to control the conversation.

You are asking women to cater to your wishes. In a discussion about women. What is that if not male privilege?

I want to preface this by saying that I am not trying to assert my "right" to control the conversation. I'm honestly making a sincere effort to describe my point of view to you.

I don't think this is just a discussion about women. This is a discussion that involves both sexes. It's a discussion about how men are treating women and how said treatment is causing women to live their lives in a fear that so ingrained that some aren't even conscious of the precautions they take as they walk out the door. It's a discussion which should include men. Scratch that--it's a discussion that must include men, if we ever want to see any progress.

I have been in enough of the wine-filled conversations that heyho describes to know that things are much worse than any of the statistics describe, and I think she's absolutely right, the real numbers have got to be higher than one in four. I can't tell you how much that infuriates me. I can't tell you how much reading the anecdotes posted here infuriates me. We as a society have GOT to come together and address these issues, because, damn it, rtha is right: this is the cause of ANYONE who cares about women, ANYONE who cares about social justice, and ANYONE who wants to live in a decent society.

But let me tell you from a man's point of view: most guys have NO IDEA how prevalent sexual intimidation, harrasment and assuault are in society today. And I'm not saying I "get it," either. I know I don't. I know that the effects that this has on women are much bigger than I can grasp. But damn it, I've been trying for a long time, and I'm going to keep on trying in the future.

This is not an easy conversation for men to have. Can you fathom what it would be like to be well into adulthood when you hear about this for the first time? It's mind-blowing and and agonizing and heartbreaking. The mind reels and doesn't want to accept it as truth. I have been fortunate in my life in that I have had some very patient women tell me their stories and lead me down the path of shocked disbelief towards some sort of comprehension. Most guys aren't so lucky.

So when you say something like "We don't have to listen to you; you have to listen to us," it's hard for me to see it as anything other than counter-productive. I mean, I'm sure that you must feel frustrated to a degree that I can't even imagine. But, please, have patience with us men. Don't write us off and don't ignore our point of view from the outset, either.
posted by joedan at 4:09 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

darksasami and non prosequitur--

I hope that the comment I just made above clarifies and expands the comment "you don't get to talk" a little bit.

non prosequitur: "fuck you for asking me to explain this to you, i don't have to explain to you, shut up and listen"

The thing is, I don't have to explain it to you (generalized "you"). It's beyond unbelievably tiring to explain it to "you," every day, all the time, wherever I am ("I" being women who have the desire to work to change things), whenever a guy makes a boneheaded comment showing that he doesn't get it, whenever something misogynistic happens right in front of a man, and he just lets it go because he doesn't understand what he just saw, whenever a man thinks that getting an asshole to back off of a clearly uncomfortable woman by lying and saying "hey, that's my sister, buddy!" is *helping*....

I don't have to explain this to you. It's not my job. I can choose to try and try and try, but it's your job to learn--by shutting up and listening. Just like I did, once I got over being pissed off, by black women telling me to shut up, because I don't get to talk. And I got over it because I realized that, hey, they're black women and I'm not, so chances are good that I know next to nothing, if not nothing, about their world, and I should shut up!

instead of going the "read 200 pages then you'll know why everything you've learned in life is wrong" route or the whole "i'm going to drag in a bunch of politically-loaded phrases in here and analogize your behaviour to it route

Oh, come on. Seriously?
posted by tzikeh at 4:12 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

tzikeh (although I'm a bit hesitant to step into your zone of fire :p) coming at "I'm listening" yourself is different from pushing people into it. I just realized when you're saying "you listen" you're coming from the idea that the person you're telling it to is reasonable and almost being generous to conceive that they're going to process things the same way as you which wasn't really what I got when I read it. I think it's just a general human thing ("you need to change your hair" is very different from someone coming to the "i need to change my hair" realization etc.) Not that you have to be super-sensitive and hinty about things, but just saying that's the distinction for the audience.

Errant, I meant it as men who're paying attention vs men who aren't, not men vs. women. In the conception what i meant by understanding = listening. I don't really follow your sentence about cause for revulsion/half the population/afraid etc. but I guess it's not that germane to the point so whatevs.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 4:12 PM on October 8, 2009

Perhaps if women were more contrasting in when they wanted attention and when they didn't, rather than being wilting violets most of the time, then they wouldn't complain there are no good men around because only jerks will approach them.

Maybe if women [acted the way i think they should], rather than being [misogynistic interpretation of their disinterest], they wouldn't complain [to the perfect dude that i obviously am, why can't you see it ladies, i'm right here waiting for you] because only [other obviously lesser dudes who aren't me] will approach [those whores].

Guy. Seriously. Take a look at yourself.
posted by Errant at 4:14 PM on October 8, 2009 [41 favorites]

Yes, Seriously. How is "you're asking me to lie back and take it" or "if a man says x, he's assertive; if a woman says x, she's a bitch" or "thank you for giving me permission" not intellectually disingenuous attempts to push political buttons?
posted by Non Prosequitur at 4:15 PM on October 8, 2009

Non Prosequitur: tzikeh (although I'm a bit hesitant to step into your zone of fire :p)

Yeah, I know I've been more zealous and angry in this post than I've possibly ever been on Metafilter. I don't know why today is the day, after so many threads touching on these subjects where I just walked away. It's built and built and built, and I've seen examples of it more and more and more--like "new-car" syndrome. Once you buy your new car, you see the exact same make and model *everywhere*. So the more I become educated about this... overwhelmingly huge set of problems, the more I see them--not because I'm imagining them; but because the make and model is EVERYWHERE.

("you need to change your hair" is very different from someone coming to the "i need to change my hair" realization etc.)

Yeah, but as someone said upthread, sometimes you (not you, specifically) need a punch in the nose to realize you need to change your hair. (Possibly because now you have to balance out your nose.)
posted by tzikeh at 4:19 PM on October 8, 2009

Am I a rapist?

Are you seriously asking us that? If you are, gosh, I dunno. I think it's more important to ask yourself that question.

Whether you're a rapist or not is just one of those things you know in your gut, isn't it? I really can't tell if you're just playing devil's advocate.

I just typed this response. Am I an author? Sorry, but it's just weird to catch up on this thread and read that question.
posted by heyho at 4:21 PM on October 8, 2009

Non Prosequitur, yeah maybe occasionally they are attempts to push political buttons, but are you seriously going to argue that they're not also pretty good snapshots of certain very common misogynistic attitudes? I am astounded that people don't see these things all around them (e.g. any discussion of woman political leaders such as the call to "put Nancy Pelosi in her place"). And I'm a guy so I'm probably missing most of it.
posted by lackutrol at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2009

Yes, Seriously. How is "you're asking me to lie back and take it"

I never said that; someone else did.

or "if a man says x, he's assertive; if a woman says x, she's a bitch"

That truth is omnipresent in our society, and that is the way the comment I responded to read to me.

or "thank you for giving me permission"

When a man tells me I'm entitled to my feelings, and then immediately goes on to tell me that unless I can justify them to his satisfaction, they're wrong, I believe I can respond with sarcasm.

not intellectually disingenuous attempts to push political buttons?

I don't see it that way--especially not disingenuous. There was no guile behind anything I said.
posted by tzikeh at 4:28 PM on October 8, 2009

Am I a rapist?

Only two people are really qualified to answer this, and only one of them is here to present his side of the story. Are you looking for absolution? For reassurance that you acted appropriately with a girl who, in your words, was plastered? Why are you asking us?

On preview, what heyho said.
posted by rtha at 4:29 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't think it's unreasonable for anybody to have at some point during their re-re-re-re-iterations to have let some steam blow off. We had the most recent "tone" discussion, what, only two weeks ago. I know I sure as hell didn't have it in me today to unpack any of the straw men or aggressively phrased blind spots in here without going crazy all caps.

heyho, thanks for putting your experience out there. I have faith that it'll get through to, well, at least some of those who listen and think and take an interest in learning from others. And I can't favourite your "We see you do that, and we sort of quietly love you for it. The sadness you feel is shared by us when we see you move over" comment hard enough.

on preview, joedan, I'd put it as "I'm listening to you, here are my reasons why I think your comment is inaccurate/uninformed/incomplete, and if this conversation has a chance of going anywhere productive, you have to listen and digest and try to put yourself in my shoes before continuing to aggressively argue your original point as if there's no chance it could ever be improved upon."

I have to say, this thread is like Cousin of the Great Gender MeTas of 2007-08. Except that in those I had many "Aaargh, this is futile" moments and here, those didn't get a chance to bloom because of how many more thoughtful guys there are in here speaking up. (Or, many fewer aggressively ignorant dismissive guys in here? perhaps both.)
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 4:30 PM on October 8, 2009

it's your job to learn--by shutting up and listening

I'm going to try one more time with you tzikeh -- because I don't like giving up on people (and because I need a break from work).

20 years ago I was being told to shut up and listen on a uni campus because "rape is about power and not about sex". "Yeah, but" -- uh-uh! Don't wanna hear it! "Ok, but consider" -- HEY! Aren't you LISTENING! You're a man! You don't know anything about this!

So fine. I don't need to have that conversation. I let points go by that are worth discussing, and yes, even disagreeing with, because I get shouted down if I don't toe some orthodox line. No loss to me.

Years later, of course, it no longer is. I might get shouted down, in fact, if I suggested that rape is all about power and not at all about sex. You're a man! You don't know anything about this? Yes, well you know what? If those people had listened 20 years ago, if they had been open to having a conversation -- a real one, not as you misuse the term -- maybe this would have been understood a long time ago. But no. Not interested. We have nothing to offer (on male aggression yet, jeez).

So you go ahead listening to half the population, and suggesting that the other half "shut up and listen" because you and your gender have it all figured out. And in 20 years when one of you figures something out and has an "aha!" moment about something some of us have been trying to tell you, we'll applaud your insight. What else are we going to do?

I didn't say your tone was out of line (and I personally think you've wilfully mischaracterized that whole criticism). I didn't know you were a woman and I don't care. I said you were behaving disrespectfully and you are. But whatever. The loss is yours if you think circumscribing the debate is of value. It isn't.

I don't know why today is the day, after so many threads touching on these subjects where I just walked away.

Well hey, we have something in common. I've spent the better part of those 20 years listening, and sometimes shaking my head, and mostly keeping it to myself. I don't know why today I didn't. Actually, I do -- it was open, interested, give-and-take conversants in the start of this thread -- not any shouting by the likes of you. Good night.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:36 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

"When was the last time you saw a woman or group of women catcall a dude? And I don't mean, like, a bachelorette party halfway through a pub crawl. Never, huh? Yeah, see, that's the thing."

I was catcalled by a girl; comment was "Nice ass!". Take this datapoint as you will.
posted by jaduncan at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2009

I don't have to explain this to you. It's not my job. I can choose to try and try and try, but it's your job to learn--by shutting up and listening.

It's not anybody's job to do anything, unless you're paying me for it and I've signed the contract. I can choose to learn, but I very well might not if I don't see benefit in it for me. And by "I" I mean "everybody in the world." That's how it works, always and everywhere.
posted by darksasami at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

OK, I know I'm a major outlier on this one, but when exactly did we decide that people of any gender had a god-given inalienable right to go around complimenting total strangers of any gender? Yes, perhaps (s)he does have what you consider to be a cute computer, hat, blouse, button nose, Prius, shih tzu, or shoes.

So fucking what? I'm already quite aware of the charms of my shih tzu, thanks, so I don't need someone else to inform me about them or verify or validate them. Strangers don't need your approval, and I don't see what makes somebody's burning desire to express unsolicited approbation sacrosanct. If people want my advice or opinion or aesthetic judgment of items within their personal space or possession, they'll ask me for it.

(Oh, wait, some people do really feel they need the approval of total strangers, in which case, why would you want to go around reinforcing such unhealthy insecurity?)

In any case, nothing prevents us from sitting there and enjoying the wonderfulness of whatever it is we find wonderful. What I don't get is this utterly unquestioned assumption that compliments are automatically innocuous and pleasant and polite when in many situations they're presumptuous and gratuitous and delivered for a host of psycho-social motives that often have zero to do with "just brightening someone's day."

I guess I'm just an old crank, but the whole public realm seems to have become Livejournal or Twitter. People can't go through the grocery store without giving somebody else a play-by-play via cellphone. They can't just share pleasant companionable silence at a bus stop. They can't walk by someone reading at a restaurant table without requesting a motherloving book report. Whatever happened to just going on about our business, with a friendly nod or smile here and there, and reveling in our own unvoiced thoughts?

Which is my cue to shut the hell up.
posted by FelliniBlank at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

I can choose to try and try and try, but it's your job to learn--by shutting up and listening. Just like I did, once I got over being pissed off, by black women telling me to shut up, because I don't get to talk.

You've had a personal revelation that in your past you needed to listen better in order to understand an issue. It might be possible that other people realize the importance of listening as well. Please stop assuming that they don't, especially when you're making the assumption solely based on their gender.

Also note that the actual poor listeners that you're trying to convince are pretty much guaranteed to ignore your advice if you simply tell them to shut up. If you're interested in changing minds, and not simply in castigating them, maybe a less ineffective approach is in order.
posted by jsonic at 4:43 PM on October 8, 2009

OK, I know I'm a major outlier on this one, but when exactly did we decide that people of any gender had a god-given inalienable right to go around complimenting total strangers of any gender?

Well, in my country, that'd be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Which not only protects it as speech, but also sets limits on it when it impinges on the rights of others. Convenient, if you ask me.
posted by darksasami at 4:45 PM on October 8, 2009

Er, would you believe "infringes"?
posted by darksasami at 4:47 PM on October 8, 2009

I mean, really. WTF is up with this, "I don't know how to behave in public anymore" crud

I didn't say that. I said it made me feel like that.

Perhaps overstated a bit, sure, but my point was that I never really considered my habit of chatting strangers up a bit to be potentially threatening.

I've changed my perception of my behaviour by reading the links and the comments here. I'd consider it a good thing.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 4:49 PM on October 8, 2009

lackutrol yes they are common snapshots. that's why they're hot buttons.

Alright. I understand the sarcasm thing. I guess they're not disingenuous as much as "overly potent" coz at least personally my internal gauge redlines if someone responds to me saying e.g. that if they're flirty with someone and the other person goes overboard they need to be assertive that the other person has gone overboard by responding, "so you're saying I'm asking for it?" Like if they're strawmanning my discussion-point like that then there's no point in even trying to parse out the issue coz they don't trust me and/or don't care for whatever thing I'm saying. I just thank them for not jumping to the worst conclusion by default and let it go. That doesn't even mean I'm right in that context and they're the obtuse ones; just that if someone's tainting you with something so dangerous [relatively dangerous] then it leads to a mental "emergency brake" moment at least for me.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 4:51 PM on October 8, 2009

joedan: This is not an easy conversation for men to have. Can you fathom what it would be like to be well into adulthood when you hear about this for the first time?

Yes, because most women over "a certain age" (including me) were never taught anything about this. Women's Studies is a relatively recent discipline. Learning about, and researching, and taking part in classes about this over the past fifteen years started out just as agonizing and heartbreaking as (I can only imagine from your end) it was for you to start looking at it. To be counted among Schrödinger's Rapists, (as opposed to Schrödinger's Raped, I guess) can't have been pleasant either.

I'm sure that you must feel frustrated to a degree that I can't even imagine. But, please, have patience with us men.

On another day, I might have. Today, I raged. It doesn't mean I never have patience with men who are blind to all of this. I'm pretty sure, looking back over the thread, that part of the reason there are flames on the side of my face today has to do with the sheer number of men in the thread who taking so many of the positions that aren't just blind, but arrogant, condescending, and contemptuous about this broad and deep topic.

Don't write us off and don't ignore our point of view from the outset, either.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm thinking back to how I experienced the race discussion, and with that kind of hindsight I know that they absolutely should have (and did) ignore my point of view at the outset. How could they not? My point of view was glaringly wrong, and racist to boot, though I wasn't conscious of it.

I've read what you've said, and yeah, you are one of the men who was dubbed "That Guy" in cereta's post--the guy who said "wait a minute; something isn't right here," who wasn't afraid to say "I am completely unaware of the truth of this situation, I am, and have been, oblivious, and these women are going to teach me what I don't know, so I am going to listen," so please tell me, and I say this with complete sincerity: why shouldn't I ignore the point of view of a man who is wrong, and ignorant, and part of the problem? I'm not saying that I think those men can't learn; I'm saying that there is no reason to give their point of view air time, for lack of a better phrase. It's uninformed, hurtful, and enraging. There is no reason that men can't have their eyes opened to this blight without women having to entertain their flat-out-wrong ideas about women's lives.

And good on you. There are some men over at cereta's post who have said that they learned from that post what you've said you learned from the women in your life who helped teach you. My hope is that more men learn to see the world the way you do, which is why I keep linking to that post. But the men over there who did learn what you know did not have their points of view acknowledged. It wasn't necessary, and it wouldn't have been helpful to the discourse.
posted by tzikeh at 4:57 PM on October 8, 2009

Bulgaroktonos, let me draw you a picture. You're walking down the street minding your own business, on your way somewhere but not involved with anything going on around you - whether by distraction or by choice. All of a sudden a bear or a lioness notices you and starts making loud roars at you while approaching you with deliberation. Would you perceive the bear or lioness as engaging in the consensual approach to a satisfying and meaningful relationship? Or would your skin turn to ice with the realization that you do not have the strength or the self-assurance to fend off this invasion of your person, that while this may be an out-of-the-ordinary experience for you, the being who has singled you out for special attention is obviously well-practiced at this particular art so you really don't stand a chance.

Offbeat analogy? I honestly do not think so. Because to the person receiving the catcalls and wolf-whistles and "hey, baby", this is not a situation of two interested parties getting acquainted and perhaps exploring mutual interests and consensual relations. This is predator and prey. And no matter how often a woman mentally rehearses what she would do if confronted with this, when the moment is actually upon her she will likely as not lose her bearings, panic, and become a deer in the headlights. Not because she's a woman but because she's HUMAN and it's what we do when confronted with sudden danger about which we've been warned but with which we have never been confronted.

I have a friend who was interviewing for a hospital staff position in Philadelphia. She stayed in a nearby hotel but the area itself turned out be fairly sketchy. That evening she had a small errand and decided to walk there because she had not been able to rent a car (for reasons that are completely tangential). I wound up staying with her on her cell phone her entire trip there and back, because she couldn't take five steps without a motorist whistling or cat-calling her. She was extremely shaken, and let's face it: If someone is going to be THAT BRAZEN about being predatory, about making sounds that say "I could own you", what on earth is really going to restrain him from pulling over and carrying the threat further? One basic societal barrier has already been broken, and when one line is crossed others get easier and easier.

As men, we do not and cannot fully understand what a woman feels about any encounters, no matter how innocuous they may seem to us, because it's an existence we'll never lead, thus we will never experience it first-hand and have no right to define to any woman what her level of comfort with our presence should be, or demand that she accept us as an equal.
And that's a lesson I myself had difficulty learning because it is difficult to comprehend how we and our actions are viewed by those whose world and lives are foreign to us.

tzikeh linked to this LiveJournal post earlier, and I highly recommend its thorough perusal. It's educational, it's informative, and it sheds light on things to which most of us are completely oblivious.
posted by hubbit at 4:57 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

Errant, the etymology of the phrase 'wilting violet' has nothing to do with misogyny, and is a sort of euphemism to describe females who are taciturn and withdrawn, usually from 'shyness', also not a misogynistic or misanthropic word. There was nothing normative in the observation, put forth as a hypothetical. The 'complaining', if your reading skills need sharpening, was not directed to anyone, so the 'perfect dude' reference will be dismissed as the result of lack of grammatical sophistication. Generally, if sitcoms are to be believed, this plaint is heard woman-to-woman. But the trait of sexual shyness, found in both genders, has both cultural and neural roots. Might I recommend the movie The Magdalena Sisters about the forced incarceration and enslavement of young women in Ireland as recently as the 1980s, by Church authorities, for such things as talking to boys, not just being pregnant out of wedlock. I've heard enough theater tickets were sold in Ireland when this movie was out to account for most of the population of the Emerald Isle.

What is being hypothesized here is a change in style that might make engagement with a sexually shy male a woman likes or is interested in, more likely, that change in style supplementing nuanced and easily misinterpreted body-language with words.

Errant, please, take a look at yourself.
posted by Veridicality at 4:57 PM on October 8, 2009

Non Prosequitur: Yes, Seriously. How is "you're asking me to lie back and take it"

Tzikeh: I never said that; someone else did.

I said that.

This is what he said: "A lot of people find things that offend other people funny. In fact, you are actually part of the reason that these t-shirts are funny to people... because they offend you. So chill out, dude, and next time you see a fat guy wearing a shirt that says "I got this fat from eating so much pussy" just think of lolcats or something."

This is what I said: "I understand what shock value humor is, thank you.
...
I'm sorry, but did you just metaphorically suggest that I lay back and enjoy it? In a thread about rape? Yeah, we're done here."

My comment was not an attempt to push political buttons. That was my honest read of what he was saying.
posted by zarq at 5:02 PM on October 8, 2009

zarq, isn't that a response that can be fitted to any "let it go" or "let others do their thing" argument? explain the airtight metaphor between what he said and telling someone who's being forced into sex that they should lie back and take it. Some burka-clad person can be offended at a picture of a woman in a bikini in a newspaper and if you started talking about how they have the right to wear that etc. they can get off into a rant about sexualization and how the person is going to hell etc. etc. and if you don't crack their worldview but just appeal to their "let people do their thing" aspect they too can be like "are you asking me to lay back and enjoy it?" It's just.. a very generically applicable statement to feeling something is infringing on something you care about.
posted by Non Prosequitur at 5:10 PM on October 8, 2009

You know why women get shrill and militant when this topic is discussed out in the wild?

Bear with me, but I think this is a valid complaint some men have during these discussions, and yeah, some women get really shrill and militant when this topic is discussed. It ain't good, but it happens.

It's because we're conditioned to expect that roughly 10% of you will think that we're overreacting. (Yep, I'm low-balling here because I don't want to lose you.) And guess what... I'm not good at math, but about one in ten of you got your knickers in a knot over some point of the discussion. You had some valid concerns, but not all of you. You know who you are; I'm not into calling individuals out.

Here's why we get "hysterical": We feel like you're trying to shut us down altogether when you pick apart one point and say we're expressing it insensitively or inaccurately. We feel like you're on that slippery slope to disregarding everything we say. And it's a hard, hard topic to talk about to begin with. Admitting you're vulnerable can be your undoing, we're told. We don't "like" to talk about our rapes or our sisters' rapes. It's painful, and everyone knows when you're pained and frustrated and you're female -- it's all gonna end in tears. Which is weak, right? (Stay with me.)

Should we get shrill and militant? Nope. It derails the whole train sometimes when we do that. But please, please try to understand that it happens to us every time we talk about this shit in the wild. Someone has to be that guy every fucking time. For real. It's like going to a party in college -- some guy just has to do his Monty Python schtick. With the rabbit and the knights and the nee! Yeah, we all know him.

What I'm saying is: we're were looking for it, waiting for it, and we unleash when we are presented with it. It's exasperating. We go into it watching out for that guy, and we hope hope hope he doesn't materialize, but guess what? He always does.

It's already exhausting to try to protect ourselves all the time. Truly, it is. We don't do well when we're already fed up with something and someone comes along and deliberately pokes us.

Yeah, my own rape bothers me, and you don't particularly upset me personally when you act like a jerk online, but the absolute suckiest part of all is that I know that there are women out there in MetaLand who are scared to tell you why they're afraid of you sometimes (and that they're sorry for that), and they had the chance in this thread to let some of that out so they wouldn't have to carry it around alone in their bellies where it fucks them up, and they felt unsafe to discuss it because they feared you'd parse every fucking word they used and wonder if they're being truthful or just out to make a damn point.

Really? Don't believe me? If you could see my mailbox, you'd cry.
posted by heyho at 5:13 PM on October 8, 2009 [93 favorites]

Well hey, we have something in common. I've spent the better part of those 20 years listening, and sometimes shaking my head, and mostly keeping it to myself. I don't know why today I didn't. Actually, I do -- it was open, interested, give-and-take conversants in the start of this thread -- not any shouting by the likes of you.

Upthread, though, someone made the observation that it's possible that a lot of the things you're going to say have already been said, to that woman, ad infinitum, by plenty of other men before you. And that may be why she is telling you she wants you to listen -- because she's heard what you've had to say before, many times over, and clearly you haven't heard what she has to say.

It may not be fair to you as the individual, no. But again -- this is the fault of the guys who came before you and ruined it for you, not that woman.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:15 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

heyho: ...I know that there are women out there in MetaLand who are scared to tell you why they're afraid of you sometimes (and that they're sorry for that)...

And they shouldn't be sorry. They should never have to be sorry for a choice they could not make because others made it for them.

I read your entry about what happened to you and applaud the fortitude it must have taken to type it out. It's probably going to sound empty, but I'm so incredibly sorry for what happened to you. FFS, you were doing something nice for a complete stranger. And yet, for every man who gets snotty and says "hey, chill out, why don'tcha try bein' sociable?", how many women have gone through unspeakable horror because they tried to be sociable and it rebounded on them in a savage way? (And still do.)
posted by hubbit at 5:24 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

> not any shouting by the likes of you. Good night.

I know you think you're being really cool and superior and dismissive and everyone is applauding, but actually you're just being a dick. We understand, it's because you got your feelings hurt. Get over it.
posted by languagehat at 5:24 PM on October 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

zarq, isn't that a response that can be fitted to any "let it go" or "let others do their thing" argument?

Tone matters. Subject matters. The subject being discussed in the conversational thread certainly matters. We're talking about whether jokes regarding a women being physically violated against her will are offensive, and gagglezoomer's response wasn't merely "lighten up." It was essentially, "you're the problem here, not the joke or the people who find it funny. The next time it happens, chill out and think of LOLcats or something."

I felt the connection was intended, and his tone was quite clear. I responded accordingly.

...explain the airtight metaphor between what he said and telling someone who's being forced into sex that they should lie back and take it.

Follow my discussion thread with gagglezoomer. We were clearly discussing date rape jokes. That's obvious. Not in any way vague or ambiguous. In addition, we have an entire, lengthy FPP comment thread here, discussing whether men are blind to women's body language and tone deaf to their feelings about rape.

It's just.. a very generically applicable statement to feeling something is infringing on something you care about.

The phrase is colloquially used by rapists before they violate their victims. If you want to make an argument that it has suddenly shucked that meaning entirely upon entering the common lexicon, by all means feel free.
posted by zarq at 5:34 PM on October 8, 2009

heyho has done a brilliant job of explaining why this is so important to women, why the women here are skinning their knuckles with the men who refuse to listen, who insist on having this conversation as though mens' and womens' experiences are the same and mens' and womens' voices are given the same weight in our society, why it is not just preferable but urgent for so many of us that this message be actually heard. I've read through the vast majority of the comments here and if I tried to respond to every problematic one I'd go crazy and be up all night, so I won't. Instead I will, in solidarity, I guess, with heyho, share my own story as to why this matters.

I was a teenager when a friend of mine set me up with this guy, who became my boyfriend for a brief period of time. She set me up with him because he had a crush on her, and she wasn't interested, and she was a pushover who couldn't tell anyone "no" (something that is so common with young women) so she thought it would be easier to set him up with me - that way he'd stop asking her out, but he wouldn't feel rejected, and maybe he and I would hit it off. He seemed nice enough - a bit of a redneck, but we lived in a small town. He had a truck. I was impressed.

Then one night he took me out and raped me.

The very small handful of people I eventually told urged me to keep it silent - to this day I do not know if any of them really believed me or not. Rumors spread (from the rapist and his friends) about what kind of a girl I was, after I broke up with him (which I tried to do by proxy, because I was scared; his friends tracked me down and forced me to break up with him to his face). It was a bad scene.

Here's the thing though: he seemed like a nice guy. He was polite. His friends seemed nice, if a bit rough. The people who told me not to tell anyone were my friends. The girl who basically put me into that situation (thereby avoiding being raped herself, I'm sure, though she didn't know it at the time and probably still doesn't know or believe it) was one of my best friends.

That was the year that I realized how rare actual safety really is. That was the year that I realized, much to my dismay, that it is not safe to take "I'm a nice guy" at face value, to assume before you know (and sometimes you can just never know) that you can trust people to not harm you or violate you.

Years ago, I worked a late shift in an area that was a forty-minute commute by public transit to and from my relatively isolated home. I developed hearing so intense that my friends commented it, and a startle response so instant and severe that I would scream if ANYONE approached me quietly from behind. On one bus ride home at night, a drunk twenty-something dude tried to grab my breasts after I'd specifically told him no; when I kicked him away, he threw his skateboard at my head. Once on my way TO work (still by bus, and in broad daylight), I dozed off, and woke up to find that the man next to me had scooted up beside me and put his arm around my shoulders, as though we were dating or even acquainted.

heyho and I are not just extraordinarily unlucky women, and we are not paranoid (read: hysterical) women. We are average women. You could know us. If you know more than three women, I am pretty sure that you know at least one woman who could tell you a similar story. Of my close lady friends now, not one - not a single one - can say that she has never been sexually assaulted.

Not my mother. Not my cousin. Not my co-workers at my last job. I have a baby sister, fourteen years my junior; I live in fear of the day I hear from her or my mother, telling me she's been raped.

I understand that this is a very hard thing for men to realize. I am completely sympathetic to that. I understand that this is a difficult discussion for men to have. It is sometimes a difficult discussion for my beau and I to have, and we've known each other for years (and, you know, being married and all tend to be fairly close) - you, the male population of MeFi, you've only known me for a few comments and I am about to perhaps accuse you of perpetuating some really nasty and hurtful shit, after outlining how similar shit had personally damaged me. That's hard for men to hear, especially men who are capable of empathy and don't like to think that they might have inadvertently caused anyone such pain.

But it is still something you need to hear. And you need to hear it without letting yourselves immediately jump up to defend your honour, to let us know that YOU'RE no rapist, to tell us how hard it is for you to hear, to tell us about your feelings, to inform us of all of what you perceive to be "logistical holes" in our "arguments". We are not arguing. We are simply speaking. And we know already how hard these conversations are, because every time we open ourselves up them, which we do, by the way, for your sakes, we open ourselves up to potentially painful, thoughtless, defensive responses from men who for all we know are the kinds of men who've abused us in countless ways.

I agree that it doesn't seem fair that men should be allowed a lesser speaking role in these conversations, that these conversations must centre around the voices of women; unfortunately, "fair" and "necessary" are not the same thing. It is nigh impossible for men, without shutting up and listening to women for a while, to fully come to understand the situation here. That is simply one of the effects of privilege; you are blind to it's absence in another group, until someone from that group shows you. It is the "special understanding" that bell hooks talks about - the special understanding that women have of maleness (not men, but maleness as a construct), and that Black people have of whiteness.

It is not our fault that the situation is what it is. It is not your fault, either - until you choose to see our words, hear our stories, and dismiss us (or demand further explanations and teaching so you can dismiss THAT) and walk away from the reality.

And the reality is that we feel unsafe because we have or have had very legitimate, good reasons to feel unsafe. And that you, without thinking, can contribute to that feeling of unsafety. And that when that happens (when you are aware of it happening, or when someone points out to you that it happens), it is important that you read things like the article linked here, or the many articles and studies linked to by the likes of muddgirl, et all, and evaluate your behavior.

Not argue with us. Not tell us we are being unreasonable. Not demand an explanation or suggest to us things that we might do to stop "being victims" or stop "asking for it" or whatever.

Just listen, read, educate yourself, and try.
posted by ellehumour at 5:37 PM on October 8, 2009 [163 favorites]

But it is still something you need to hear. And you need to hear it without letting yourselves immediately jump up to defend your honour, to let us know that YOU'RE no rapist, to tell us how hard it is for you to hear, to tell us about your feelings, to inform us of all of what you perceive to be "logistical holes" in our "arguments". We are not arguing. We are simply speaking. And we know already how hard these conversations are, because every time we open ourselves up them, which we do, by the way, for your sakes, we open ourselves up to potentially painful, thoughtless, defensive responses from men who for all we know are the kinds of men who've abused us in countless ways.

I agree that it doesn't seem fair that men should be allowed a lesser speaking role in these conversations, that these conversations must centre around the voices of women; unfortunately, "fair" and "necessary" are not the same thing. It is nigh impossible for men, without shutting up and listening to women for a while, to fully come to understand the situation here. That is simply one of the effects of privilege; you are blind to it's absence in another group, until someone from that group shows you. It is the "special understanding" that bell hooks talks about - the special understanding that women have of maleness (not men, but maleness as a construct), and that Black people have of whiteness.

I cannot favorite this comment, and specifically these two paragraphs enough.

ellehumour, I'm sorry. :( But thank you for sharing and saying this.
posted by zarq at 5:42 PM on October 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Veridicality, you wrote:

I have always respected women's space, but, depending upon context, this is frequently interpreted by them as disinterest, while the more pushy-type male (friends of mine, sometimes) move right in and get phone numbers. Perhaps if women were more contrasting in when they wanted attention and when they didn't, rather than being wilting violets most of the time, then they wouldn't complain there are no good men around because only jerks will approach them.

Now, let's say that the use of "wilting violet" is, as you say, a non-misogynistic (ha!) euphemism for "females who are taciturn and withdrawn". So, we are to understand that women who interpret you as being "disinterested" are therefore "taciturn and withdrawn". Nope, no misogyny or bitterness there. You're a floral metaphor away from just calling them frigid bitches.

If only, you say, women were more "contrasting" in their behavior, they wouldn't complain so much about the "jerks". How do we know they do, indeed, complain so much? Sitcoms tell us so, of course! That inerrant encyclopedia of human behavior, the situation comedy. Why you gotta complain so much, sitcom ladies? Always complaining all the time, to each other, in those places I can't go like the day spa or the manicurist. Don't you know you could just contrast your behavior better? And hey, how come you always go to the bathroom in groups, you know what I mean?

All right, look, this isn't about your dating habits or your success in that arena or whatever. This is about this:

What is being hypothesized here is a change in style that might make engagement with a sexually shy male a woman likes or is interested in, more likely, that change in style supplementing nuanced and easily misinterpreted body-language with words.

"If women want a more positive experience, defined as engaging with different men than I see them do, they have to be different than they are."

That's the problem I have with what you're saying. It comes from a place of deep entitlement and buried resentment. It says that women are flawed in all the ways in which they don't do what you think they should do. It's passive-aggressive misogyny masquerading as a nice guy's travail, and it's beneath you. Respecting women's space, in no small part, means also respecting their choices, and nothing you're saying communicates respect for women at all. I'm sure you are the nice and smart guy you no doubt claim to be, so seriously, think about it. The fault, dear Veridicality, lies not in the violets.
posted by Errant at 5:43 PM on October 8, 2009 [16 favorites]

Perhaps if women were more contrasting in when they wanted attention and when they didn't, rather than being wilting violets most of the time, then they wouldn't complain there are no good men around because only jerks will approach them.

Perhaps if there weren't any men who were acting like they had more of a claim on our time than we think we did, women would feel more comfortable letting you see when they wanted attention.

Perhaps if you saw a jerk hassling a woman and you stepped up and said, "hey, buddy, she's telling you buzz off, why don't you do so?" then that woman would trust you enough to know she can let you know if she's interested and then you could tell.

Perhaps women just wanted to be treated as PEOPLE, rather than as a separate species.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:53 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Durn Bronzefist: I'm going to try one more time with you tzikeh -- because I don't like giving up on people...

That's good--as everyone in this thread can probably tell by now, neither do I.

it was open, interested, give-and-take conversants in the start of this thread -- not any shouting by the likes of you. Good night.

I don't think "not giving up on people" means what you think it means.
posted by tzikeh at 5:57 PM on October 8, 2009

So when "explain this to me" is followed by "fuck you for asking me to explain this to you, i don't have to explain to you, shut up and listen" I don't understand why the addressee's reaction shouldn't be "forget it" rather than starry-eyed "you're right!"

When "explain this to me" is coming on the heels of ten other previous explanations of the same exact thing, or is phrased as, "are you SURE that's the case, because in my experience, I think....so explain to me why I'm wrong about that?" then....neither of those cases come across as someone who is sincerely trying to understand. The first instance sounds like someone who's just obtuse and ignoring all the previous explanations. The second is someone who would listen to your argument only for the sake of trying to poke holes in it and prove HE'S right and YOU'RE wrong.

And this is too important a matter to get into an Intellectual Thunderdome kind of situation with, hence...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:00 PM on October 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

After spending four years teaching self defense to women (and some men) who were victims of sexual assault and domestic violence I saw people with those emotional scars really never go away. I had stop teaching it. It was really just too hard.

After that I developed a reflex about approaching any stranger on the street who might even theoretically perceive me as a threat. When I'm walking up behind a woman or smaller man I always slow down and let get far ahead. Even though I'm not that big (6ft 200lbs). I get it. Why make somebody nervous just to get somewhere five seconds faster.

I know I don't like it when people walk up on me even if I'm in the super market. And I know how to fuck somebody up. So, I can imagine what it must be like for person who was a victim, or of a class of people who are typical victims of violence, to constantly have that anxiety. Why aggravate it.

I've never cat-called anybody in my life. I had a hard time believing anybody actually did. I honestly had never ever seen this. Until I was walking with my wife and her friends about 12 years ago. The gals were wearing skirts and several paces ahead of us spouses. It only took five blocks for shit to start. It was appalling. Jeebus Fucking Chronst. At least five guys said something totally foul. Three more merely discourteous gestures. It was a real eye-opener.

I've lived and traveled through some tough places. Places where there's just critical mass of people who wanted to hurt you to make it obvious when you walk down the street. I can't imagine having to look over my shoulder like that 24-7. It would be exhausting. Guys. Really. You gotta put your self in somebody shoes for a minute.

I never had this anxiety some guys have about meeting women where the signals seem so unclear. Not since I was like fifteen anyway. So maybe I'm not the best example. I'd wager that if most dudes who seem to have this problem took a few seconds to really, really, get outside their own ego's and insecurities they'd see the signals.
posted by tkchrist at 6:03 PM on October 8, 2009 [26 favorites]

Perhaps if you saw a jerk hassling a woman and you stepped up and said, "hey, buddy, she's telling you buzz off, why don't you do so?" then that woman would trust you enough to know she can let you know if she's interested and then you could tell.

FYI. PRO-TIP: Don't ever do that. Not unless that jerk is your friend. Or you're very confident you can kick the ass of that jerk and his two (maybe three) friends waiting around the corner. I can't count the number of fights I've seen start just like that. From experience I've never met woman impressed with my ability to kick some jerks ass. In fact it seemed a sure way for said jerk to suddenly get all the sympathy.

It's precisely that kind of ego/territorial thing I would suggest men and women would want to avoid.

But I get your overall point.
posted by tkchrist at 6:10 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Something I wanted to address from way, way upthread that I forgot about until going over the thread just now: the idea of "if I talk to her and she responds by chatting with me, she obviously wasn't afraid," and related comments.

Women (girls) are taught to be friendly. Be polite. Make eye contact. Smile. Respond. So yeah, just because a woman responds to you after you initiate conversation doesn't always mean she wants to talk to you, as disheartening as that fact is. She may be responding because she's "supposed" to--look through this thread for the accounts of women who've ignored men who were trying to talk to them. Look at what happens next--increasingly aggressive behavior and language, to the point of threat, to the point of terror, to the point where women fled, etc. We know these stories. We know the women they've happened to, or we've experienced them first-hand, or both. If we respond, even if we don't want to, the man speaking to us thinks we're interested, though it's possible we aren't, and we can't do anything about that. If we don't respond, we chance being shouted at, terrorized, physically assaulted or worse, and we can't do anything about that.

Our worlds are not the same.
posted by tzikeh at 6:16 PM on October 8, 2009 [15 favorites]

If we respond, even if we don't want to, the man speaking to us thinks we're interested, though it's possible we aren't, and we can't do anything about that. If we don't respond, we chance being shouted at, terrorized, physically assaulted or worse, and we can't do anything about that.

Pardon me while I shill for a moment.

Well you can do something about it. At least in terms of helping your self-confidence. One of those things I strongly recommend is to take a good Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu course. Not some fly-by-night self defense class. But BJJ.

I know lot's of women who felt the way you described who have done so. Women who now know precisely what they are capable of doing should a much larger man be a threat to them. They have the confidence of demonstrable skills of submitting larger game and resisting male opponents on the mat three nights a week. Skills that translate directly into the unfortunate scenarios many women fear in terms of assault. you find a place near you I can tell you if their the real thing or not.

Just a suggestion.
posted by tkchrist at 6:29 PM on October 8, 2009

tkchrist: Guys. Really. You gotta put your self in somebody shoes for a minute.

Fair enough. Many of us have sisters, wives or relate to women in one way or another. No one can deny their vulnerability or their experiences. Most of us know men that will behave like jerks given the chance. Most of us will not think twice of beating the crap out of someone who is threatening a woman.

So it's a mistake to imply even if subtly that all men should be suspected by default. Take the time to see this offends a large portion of men, that are neither rapists nor a threat to women.
Maybe you aren't aware or maybe you are, but this message in all its variations is powerful, it continues to polarize gender relations, and most importantly, is unfair. Oh and yes, some men are really sick of it.
posted by borgesian at 6:29 PM on October 8, 2009

their = they're
posted by tkchrist at 6:29 PM on October 8, 2009

Take the time to see this offends a large portion of men, that are neither rapists nor a threat to women.

Sure. I get it. The assumption of guilt is inflammatory, ignorant, and infuriating.

So. What.

Really. So. What.

In the parlance of the macho: Suck it up, man. Grow a pair. Take one for the team. Move on. In the scope of life's sometime eternal unfair suckiness this is a minor injustice.
posted by tkchrist at 6:38 PM on October 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

Most of us will not think twice of beating the crap out of someone who is threatening a woman.

So it's a mistake to imply even if subtly that all men should be suspected by default.

Most people are honest enough not to break into my house.

I still lock my door at night.

A low risk of a really bad outcome is not worth taking. It doesn't matter that most men aren't rapists. And it certainly doesn't matter that I'm not a rapist, because how is anyone to know that by looking at me? Women are still justified in keeping their guard up, at least a little, because the consequences of getting it wrong just plain suck too hard.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:38 PM on October 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Hi there. Sorry to distract from the business at hand, but I've been reading MeFi for a few years now (and reading this discussion all day) and decided to sign up for an account to say thank you to (almost) everyone here for this thread. This is the best discussion of this topic I've ever seen, and I think I've learned some important things from all of you. This thread was worth the five bucks (and much, much more) all by itself.
posted by Limiter at 6:42 PM on October 8, 2009 [7 favorites]

I don't think "not giving up on people" means what you think it means.

Zing! I'm not sure what else to say when I have more work and a commute to go. See you in an hour? This is not how I want to spend my evening.

But way to deal with the substance of my comment. Classy. I'm surprised you even read it.

Tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow and see if you've mustered any reply to a concrete example of an observation that started out outrageous (!) and eventually became accepted wisdom no thanks to a bunch of useless guys trying to get a word in. Of course, you've got it all figured out now. That was then. The only reason to include guys at this point is that they're the problem, not because they might have any insights with regard to either problem or solution.

And the suggestion -- not by you. mind -- that this is new! Yes, it's *shocking* to hear these points made mid-life. What a Secret War it is. Only... we've been having this conversation for decades. I'm sorry if it's new to you, but the arrogance behind the idea that we should hush and listen to the received wisdom is... well, it's nothing new either, as I pointed out. If repetition is deserving of a space on a bingo card (and thereby somehow invalidated, which is nonsense), then you've contributed nothing to this thread. I'm pegging the average age of the most strident participants here at about 22, because that seems to be the point at which people think they are unveiling The Truth (!) which has Never Been Heard Before!

So do go on. I'm sure you'd rather alienate as many people on your side of this issue as it takes to ensure that proper deference is given to those with the right set of genitalia.

We weren't talking about this 20 years ago because we didn't care. We cared enough to argue about it -- vociferously. And no we didn't solve it. But despite your obvious high opinion of yourself, people like you are not your objective's best asset. You're just turning ears and eyes and minds away.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:45 PM on October 8, 2009

Dammit!!! I was absent the day they taught throwing up on cue.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:57 PM on October 8, 2009

You know, when I lived in a rougher neighborhood some years back, I used to constantly bitch that I couldn't walk a block and a half to the train without hearing, "Heh. Heh. Niiiice titties," or some such. It didn't scare me, but it had the effect of making me just hate men. At one point it began to boil over, and I'd seethe over how much I hated them.

Then I realized that my thinking was alllllll wrong, and I calmed down. And I started to like you all again because of a few of my guy friends were so undeniably sweet, it just couldn't be possible that they were the lone exceptions. But it took a while for me to cool off from that daily upset on the way to the damn el. It wasn't rape that made me feel such hatred toward nearly all men -- it was the comments so many were making. I'm sure in some weird way they thought they were complimenting me.

Don't judge women for getting all uptight all the time. There's a story behind an uptight woman that she just doesn't trust you enough to tell you about.

And don't dismiss your gay brothers -- I like you guys now mostly because of the influence of gay men who always seemed open to discussing stuff like the perils of women. They can be lifesavers, and I daresay, you all owe them. In a lot of cases, they're the reason women put up with you. heh. Yeah, I'm kidding a little, but... not very much.

Also, ellehumour, your story breaks my heart. Thanks for standing beside me. I quite appreciate that. You're brave for having done it, and you'll feel better for it... (how does that saying go?) aaaaannny minute now. Just wait for that feeling; it'll come.
posted by heyho at 6:58 PM on October 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Durn Bronzefist: I'm sorry if it's new to you, but the arrogance behind the idea that we should hush and listen to the received wisdom is... well, it's nothing new either, as I pointed out.

What the hell are you talking about? I've been having this discussion, as I've said above, for over fifteen years!

There's no point in either of us engaging with the other in this thread anymore.

Hi. Whatcha reading? October 8, 2009 8:06 AM Subscribe

Hi. Whatcha reading?
October 8, 2009 8:06 AM Subscribe