Most men are a threat to women in the sense that if they wanted they could probably overpower that woman.
Being smart and knowing how to handle that threat is in NO WAY A MENTAL ILLNESS. Thinking they should go 'oh I'm sure I'll be okay he seems nice' might be though.
Seriously. Even when nothing bad happens, my first thought when some woman goes off alone with a stranger is 'have you suffered a debilitating head injury lately'?
And I've done it, full disclosure. I got a lift home from the club district from a stranger one night because I had no money and the trains had stopped running and the gig was shit and I was disappointed and tired. And it was an incredibly high risk to take, and I was pretty damn vigilant the whole time. He was a perfectly nice chap as it turns out, but I still kick myself about doing it. And don't you dare fucking demean me for being aware that I did something pretty stupid with my personal safety.
Me taking a friend to help pick up stuff from a stranger ... perfectly reasonable.
Woman leaving contact information before a date ... completely unreasonable
Holy fuck.
you are leaving out the "for the police" after contact information.
And you're leaving out the part where if the woman does disappear, the police are going to be the people who need that information.
No, I'm not.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
17% chance of sexual assault in their lifetime.
That does not include the other bad things that can happen.
That does not include other factors which may raise the chances.
It's aimed to the general audience of men who are acting like creeps and dicks regardless of whether or not they actually are creeps and dicks but who do not realize that they are acting like creeps and dicks.
And it defines acting like a creep and/or dick as "saying hi"
No it doesn't.
Stop strawmanning everything.
Uh....
You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
Now, what she's saying is "Don't say "HI!" when a woman clearly isn't paying attention to you and is probably doing something and doesn't want to be interrupted. She might be doing it intentionally to avoid you"
But what comes across is SAYING HI TO A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT LOOK LIKE SHE IS EXPRESSLY INVITING YOU TO TALK TO HER IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AND LABELS YOU A POTENTIAL RAPIST.
Please tell me you aren't missing this point, dude.
technically, what she's saying is "being a man labels you as a potential rapist"
which really isn't any different from thinking a black guy is going to rob you because he's black.
Fine, all men are victims because women have to take reasonable precautions concerning their well being.
Whatever guys.
what the hell are you on about, here
no one's saying men are victims
evan and pony in particular have been doing exactly that for pages - that's its a terrible awful thing that men aren't given the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time no matter what. And you know what, it isn't. Its ok to feel sad that women evaluate you with caution, but its not ok to turn it into a huge deal. Its definitely not ok to turn around and call women crazy for taking care of themselves.
The Cat on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
It's aimed to the general audience of men who are acting like creeps and dicks regardless of whether or not they actually are creeps and dicks but who do not realize that they are acting like creeps and dicks.
And it defines acting like a creep and/or dick as "saying hi"
No it doesn't.
Stop strawmanning everything.
Uh....
You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
Now, what she's saying is "Don't say "HI!" when a woman clearly isn't paying attention to you and is probably doing something and doesn't want to be interrupted. She might be doing it intentionally to avoid you"
But what comes across is SAYING HI TO A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT LOOK LIKE SHE IS EXPRESSLY INVITING YOU TO TALK TO HER IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AND LABELS YOU A POTENTIAL RAPIST.
Please tell me you aren't missing this point, dude.
This is actually a good point
If you aren't talking to someone, why would they be paying attention
God damn I hate people who can't figure out subtext.
Pony, do you know anything about standard body language?
Do you know what arms crossed over the chest MEANS in body language?
It can, in fact, mean a lot of things!
It's just one component of a person's over-all body language. I actually know a great deal about body language, I spent many many years studying the subject in detail!
Folded arms, in and of itself, can mean a ton of different things. What is important to note is the combination of folded arms with the facial expression. Facial expressions can tell you tons about a person's current emotional state, more than their words can in many instances.
A woman sitting by herself on the subway, arms folded, jaw clenched, staring out the window with her eyebrows compressed and slowly breathing through her nose is best not disturbed. That woman looks pissed and even if she doesn't think you are a creepy rapist talking to her at all isn't likely to illicit a positive reaction.
A woman with her arms crossed who doesn't look pissed, her facial muscles relaxed, and is just sorta absently staring out with mid-speed pupil movement is probably daydreaming and is, potentially, approachable. She's likely got her arms folded because she's bored, especially if the seat she's on doesn't have arm rests.
I've certainly talked to women before who have been reading, and in fact my standard inroad is to ask them about or express interest in what they are reading. Doesn't always work, I've certainly had my share of fuck off looks as she goes back to her reading. I take the hint, of course, and don't pursue that further.
But, I've also had success with that same technique.
It's all about reading the initial body language, and paying attention to the reaction when you make your first words to them. Should be pretty obvious if she's interested in interacting with you at all.
This article is basically saying that if a woman is doing anything that isn't looking directly at you like she wants to chat, you should stay away lest you scare her with your boorish self.
That's silly and needless. Hyperbole? Perhaps. It's still bad advice.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
17% chance of sexual assault in their lifetime.
That does not include the other bad things that can happen.
That does not include other factors which may raise the chances.
What percentage of that sexual assault comes from strangers?
Fine, all men are victims because women have to take reasonable precautions concerning their well being.
Whatever guys.
what the hell are you on about, here
no one's saying men are victims
evan and pony in particular have been doing exactly that for pages - that's its a terrible awful thing that men aren't given the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time no matter what. And you know what, it isn't. Its ok to feel sad that women evaluate you with caution, but its not ok to turn it into a huge deal. Its definitely not ok to turn around and call women crazy for taking care of themselves.
Where did I say anything about men being victims?
just because a scenario is wrong does not mean that some one has to be a victim.
Evander on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I think the most that should be taken from that blog is
"Girls worry about things you don't, take this into account and take notice of body language"
Fine, all men are victims because women have to take reasonable precautions concerning their well being.
Whatever guys.
what the hell are you on about, here
no one's saying men are victims
evan and pony in particular have been doing exactly that for pages - that's its a terrible awful thing that men aren't given the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time no matter what. And you know what, it isn't. Its ok to feel sad that women evaluate you with caution, but its not ok to turn it into a huge deal. Its definitely not ok to turn around and call women crazy for taking care of themselves.
I am quite sure pony moves through his regular life without being hideously offended every day because he is being silently judged by strangers
I am somewhat less certain about evander but I still think the odds are good
What AG is doing is pretending that pony et al are creating a false equivalency between women's legitimate fear of being assaulted, and decent men's discomfort at being considered a possible assaulter.
Only no one's claiming that equivalency exists.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Fine, all men are victims because women have to take reasonable precautions concerning their well being.
Whatever guys.
what the hell are you on about, here
no one's saying men are victims
evan and pony in particular have been doing exactly that for pages - that's its a terrible awful thing that men aren't given the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time no matter what. And you know what, it isn't. Its ok to feel sad that women evaluate you with caution, but its not ok to turn it into a huge deal. Its definitely not ok to turn around and call women crazy for taking care of themselves.
Well, I point out where my concerns lie in the way that article, and you and Incen say "That's hyperbole/she's joking can't you see that?" and my response is no, Cat, I can't.
At least, not on an initial reading. I guess with you guys telling me she's using hyperbole for dramatic effect, I can re-read it and see that.
I still think it has bad advice. The whole "this woman is crazy" thing is only if her words are taken seriously at face value. If she's intentionally being hyperbolic for effect, that's of course different.
But, even then, the whole "If a woman isn't looking at you, don't talk to her" thing is facepalmingly bad advice.
It's a badly written article and doesn't really carry the point across properly that it's evidently trying to make.
Just to get out my opinion, leaving contact information, even for the police, does not seem all that unreasonable to me.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
It's just one component of a person's over-all body language. I actually know a great deal about body language, I spent many many years studying the subject in detail!
Folded arms, in and of itself, can mean a ton of different things. What is important to note is the combination of folded arms with the facial expression. Facial expressions can tell you tons about a person's current emotional state, more than their words can in many instances.
A woman sitting by herself on the subway, arms folded, jaw clenched, staring out the window with her eyebrows compressed and slowly breathing through her nose is best not disturbed. That woman looks pissed and even if she doesn't think you are a creepy rapist talking to her at all isn't likely to illicit a positive reaction.
A woman with her arms crossed who doesn't look pissed, her facial muscles relaxed, and is just sorta absently staring out with mid-speed pupil movement is probably daydreaming and is, potentially, approachable. She's likely got her arms folded because she's bored, especially if the seat she's on doesn't have arm rests.
I've certainly talked to women before who have been reading, and in fact my standard inroad is to ask them about or express interest in what they are reading. Doesn't always work, I've certainly had my share of fuck off looks as she goes back to her reading. I take the hint, of course, and don't pursue that further.
But, I've also had success with that same technique.
It's all about reading the initial body language, and paying attention to the reaction when you make your first words to them. Should be pretty obvious if she's interested in interacting with you at all.
This article is basically saying that if a woman is doing anything that isn't looking directly at you like she wants to chat, you should stay away lest you scare her with your boorish self.
That's silly and needless. Hyperbole? Perhaps. It's still bad advice.
So you are upset that the article did not go into more detail on the full spectrum of body language then?
Well, I point out where my concerns lie in the way that article, and you and Incen say "That's hyperbole/she's joking can't you see that?" and my response is no, Cat, I can't.
At least, not on an initial reading. I guess with you guys telling me she's using hyperbole for dramatic effect, I can re-read it and see that.
I still think it has bad advice. The whole "this woman is crazy" thing is only if her words are taken seriously at face value. If she's intentionally being hyperbolic for effect, that's of course different.
But, even then, the whole "If a woman isn't looking at you, don't talk to her" thing is facepalmingly bad advice.
It's a badly written article and doesn't really carry the point across properly that it's evidently trying to make.
Right. Like I said, the article should have assumed a lower level of literacy on the part of its readers.
I feel like the SR thread was written by a woman for a female audience, and a feminist audience. So the author makes assumptions and takes experiences for granted etc, and as a woman I get the piece and it really reflects a lot of how I feel.
But as a Dude 101 piece, it could be better, I think.
Just to get out my opinion, leaving contact information, even for the police, does not seem all that unreasonable to me.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
I wonder if the very high odds of a young man being non-sexually assaulted in public feed into this. Because in terms of raw stats, men in their twenties are at a very high risk of being victimised (and many of those injuries are arguably almost as severe as a rape, and sometimes are worse), but you don't get friendly reactions if you tell a dude he needs to be vigilant in the way a woman would be. Its seen as emasculating, or something, to worry about one's safety.
Speculation, but maybe some are frustrated at what they perceive to be women acting like pussies.
It's just one component of a person's over-all body language. I actually know a great deal about body language, I spent many many years studying the subject in detail!
Folded arms, in and of itself, can mean a ton of different things. What is important to note is the combination of folded arms with the facial expression. Facial expressions can tell you tons about a person's current emotional state, more than their words can in many instances.
A woman sitting by herself on the subway, arms folded, jaw clenched, staring out the window with her eyebrows compressed and slowly breathing through her nose is best not disturbed. That woman looks pissed and even if she doesn't think you are a creepy rapist talking to her at all isn't likely to illicit a positive reaction.
A woman with her arms crossed who doesn't look pissed, her facial muscles relaxed, and is just sorta absently staring out with mid-speed pupil movement is probably daydreaming and is, potentially, approachable. She's likely got her arms folded because she's bored, especially if the seat she's on doesn't have arm rests.
I've certainly talked to women before who have been reading, and in fact my standard inroad is to ask them about or express interest in what they are reading. Doesn't always work, I've certainly had my share of fuck off looks as she goes back to her reading. I take the hint, of course, and don't pursue that further.
But, I've also had success with that same technique.
It's all about reading the initial body language, and paying attention to the reaction when you make your first words to them. Should be pretty obvious if she's interested in interacting with you at all.
This article is basically saying that if a woman is doing anything that isn't looking directly at you like she wants to chat, you should stay away lest you scare her with your boorish self.
That's silly and needless. Hyperbole? Perhaps. It's still bad advice.
So you are upset that the article did not go into more detail on the full spectrum of body language then?
No, I find the article annoying because it's tenor was "You don't know, so don't do anything".
It's advice was for a man to consider all the fucked up shit women unfortunately are forced to deal with when moving about in today's world (GOOD!), understand that, and then under almost no circumstance approach or speak to women unless expressly invited to do so. (BAD!)
Couple that with inflammatory language (You are Schreodinger's Rapist!) and it's a shitty article. You admit it "could've been written better", and that's all I am really saying.
She's not making bad points. She's making good points, badly. She's giving bad advice that, if taken seriously at face value will lead to A) Women being needlessly squirrelly and Men being terrified of talking to a woman.
The article is titled "guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" for Christ's sake!
You might find yourself saying "Oh, Pony, lighten up, that's obviously not meant to be taken that seriously" but then it becomes a question of how much of that article she actually means as real advice, isn't it?
The problem with coloring your writing with hyperbole and including real advice is you are expecting your intended audience to be able to tell the two apart without being clear about the distinction.
This can often be done badly, and this article is an example of that.
Pony on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Just to get out my opinion, leaving contact information, even for the police, does not seem all that unreasonable to me.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
It's not at all unreasonable.
Personally I have the added protective layer of my insufferable mother who checks up on me constantly.
Well, I point out where my concerns lie in the way that article, and you and Incen say "That's hyperbole/she's joking can't you see that?" and my response is no, Cat, I can't.
At least, not on an initial reading. I guess with you guys telling me she's using hyperbole for dramatic effect, I can re-read it and see that.
I still think it has bad advice. The whole "this woman is crazy" thing is only if her words are taken seriously at face value. If she's intentionally being hyperbolic for effect, that's of course different.
But, even then, the whole "If a woman isn't looking at you, don't talk to her" thing is facepalmingly bad advice.
It's a badly written article and doesn't really carry the point across properly that it's evidently trying to make.
Right. Like I said, the article should have assumed a lower level of literacy on the part of its readers.
No, Incenjucar, and you should come off your high-horse before you pull a Christopher Reeve.
"A lower literacy level" implies that a person who doesn't see the easy distinction between her hyperbole and relevant points is somehow an idiot or "less literate".
This is you, doing something you are bad for, which is belittling someone who doesn't see something the way you do as an inferior. You're essentially talking down to me, and telling me that I have a "lower literacy level" because I don't see the clear distinction between her outrageous statements for effect and her bad advice and sly quasi-misandry and the handful of good points it makes.
It would be nice if you can admit that misreading this badly written article doesn't make me a moron. You're insulting folk like me directly for basically no other reason than I didn't read it the same way you did.
No, I find the article annoying because it's tenor was "You don't know, so don't do anything".
The article is not written at the level you are reading it. I promise you, you are in error as to the actual content of the article at the level it was written.
It's advice was for a man to consider all the fucked up shit women unfortunately are forced to deal with when moving about in today's world (GOOD!), understand that, and then under almost no circumstance approach or speak to women unless expressly invited to do so. (BAD!)
Couple that with inflammatory language (You are Schreodinger's Rapist!) and it's a shitty article. You admit it "could've been written better", and that's all I am really saying.
It is a shitty article if it is intended for a general audience, I agree. Otherwise it is an roughly average article. As for the choice of language, you very clearly do not enjoy the terminology used by Feminist discourse, but you should be getting around the fact by now.
She's not making bad points. She's making good points, badly. She's giving bad advice that, if taken seriously at face value will lead to A) Women being needlessly squirrelly and Men being terrified of talking to a woman.
Yes, the text assumes you can figure out the subtext, which may be unfair.
The article is titled "guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" for Christ's sake!
You might find yourself saying "Oh, Pony, lighten up, that's obviously not meant to be taken that seriously" but then it becomes a question of how much of that article she actually means as real advice, isn't it?
The problem with coloring your writing with hyperbole and including real advice is you are expecting your intended audience to be able to tell the two apart without being clear about the distinction.
This can often be done badly, and this article is an example of that.
I believe it is fair to assume that either the writer does not understand the intended audience, or did not intend the audience it has received.
Regardless, you have had the article explained to you, and should move on to reacting to that.
Just to get out my opinion, leaving contact information, even for the police, does not seem all that unreasonable to me.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
I wonder if the very high odds of a young man being non-sexually assaulted in public feed into this. Because in terms of raw stats, men in their twenties are at a very high risk of being victimised (and many of those injuries are arguably almost as severe as a rape, and sometimes are worse), but you don't get friendly reactions if you tell a dude he needs to be vigilant in the way a woman would be. Its seen as emasculating, or something, to worry about one's safety.
Speculation, but maybe some are frustrated at what they perceive to be women acting like pussies.
Honestly, I just don't like being told that it is reasonable for some one to assume that I might be a rapist without knowing anything at all about me.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
17% chance of sexual assault in their lifetime.
That does not include the other bad things that can happen.
That does not include other factors which may raise the chances.
17% wow, thats somewhere between 1 outta 5 and 1 outta 6. Imagine walking down the street silently counting females you pass. Every 6th one is/will be a rape victim, regardless of age or looks. That is fucking scaring me right now.
What are people opinions of women carrying mace to a date vs leaving contact info? or has that already been discussed?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
No, I find the article annoying because it's tenor was "You don't know, so don't do anything".
The article is not written at the level you are reading it. I promise you, you are in error as to the actual content of the article at the level it was written.
It's advice was for a man to consider all the fucked up shit women unfortunately are forced to deal with when moving about in today's world (GOOD!), understand that, and then under almost no circumstance approach or speak to women unless expressly invited to do so. (BAD!)
Couple that with inflammatory language (You are Schreodinger's Rapist!) and it's a shitty article. You admit it "could've been written better", and that's all I am really saying.
It is a shitty article if it is intended for a general audience, I agree. Otherwise it is an roughly average article. As for the choice of language, you very clearly do not enjoy the terminology used by Feminist discourse, but you should be getting around the fact by now.
She's not making bad points. She's making good points, badly. She's giving bad advice that, if taken seriously at face value will lead to A) Women being needlessly squirrelly and Men being terrified of talking to a woman.
Yes, the text assumes you can figure out the subtext, which may be unfair.
The article is titled "guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" for Christ's sake!
You might find yourself saying "Oh, Pony, lighten up, that's obviously not meant to be taken that seriously" but then it becomes a question of how much of that article she actually means as real advice, isn't it?
The problem with coloring your writing with hyperbole and including real advice is you are expecting your intended audience to be able to tell the two apart without being clear about the distinction.
This can often be done badly, and this article is an example of that.
I believe it is fair to assume that either the writer does not understand the intended audience, or did not intend the audience it has received.
Regardless, you have had the article explained to you, and should move on to reacting to that.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
17% chance of sexual assault in their lifetime.
That does not include the other bad things that can happen.
That does not include other factors which may raise the chances.
17% wow, thats somewhere between 1 outta 5 and 1 outta 6. Imagine walking down the street silently counting females you pass. Every 6th one is/will be a rape victim, regardless of age or looks. That is fucking scaring me right now.
What are people opinions of women carrying mace to a date vs leaving contact info? or has that already been discussed?
they would seem to be pretty different things
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
No, I find the article annoying because it's tenor was "You don't know, so don't do anything".
The article is not written at the level you are reading it. I promise you, you are in error as to the actual content of the article at the level it was written.
It's advice was for a man to consider all the fucked up shit women unfortunately are forced to deal with when moving about in today's world (GOOD!), understand that, and then under almost no circumstance approach or speak to women unless expressly invited to do so. (BAD!)
Couple that with inflammatory language (You are Schreodinger's Rapist!) and it's a shitty article. You admit it "could've been written better", and that's all I am really saying.
It is a shitty article if it is intended for a general audience, I agree. Otherwise it is an roughly average article. As for the choice of language, you very clearly do not enjoy the terminology used by Feminist discourse, but you should be getting around the fact by now.
She's not making bad points. She's making good points, badly. She's giving bad advice that, if taken seriously at face value will lead to A) Women being needlessly squirrelly and Men being terrified of talking to a woman.
Yes, the text assumes you can figure out the subtext, which may be unfair.
The article is titled "guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" for Christ's sake!
You might find yourself saying "Oh, Pony, lighten up, that's obviously not meant to be taken that seriously" but then it becomes a question of how much of that article she actually means as real advice, isn't it?
The problem with coloring your writing with hyperbole and including real advice is you are expecting your intended audience to be able to tell the two apart without being clear about the distinction.
This can often be done badly, and this article is an example of that.
I believe it is fair to assume that either the writer does not understand the intended audience, or did not intend the audience it has received.
Regardless, you have had the article explained to you, and should move on to reacting to that.
Alright then: A lot of the advice in the article is bad. Some of it's good. It's a mixed bag. The bad doesn't invalidate the good, but you really gotta be choosy. For the purpose Gorilla originally posted it ("All guys should read this!") it's really bad, but I doubt that was the author's intent, looking around the site it was posted on.
Cass is right: It's a feminist article, written for feminists by a feminist. While it purports to be written "for guys", that's something of a literary device. Your average dude isn't the intended audience and that's not how it's written.
Which leaves me to question what the article's purpose is.
I'm not a feminist, Incenjucar. Are you? Perhaps you can explain this to me. Gorilla posted it for one reason but I doubt that was it's purpose. So, what is it?
No, Incenjucar, and you should come off your high-horse before you pull a Christopher Reeve.
"A lower literacy level" implies that a person who doesn't see the easy distinction between her hyperbole and relevant points is somehow an idiot or "less literate".
You are less literate than the article assumes. This doesn't make you an idiot, it means that you very likely have less experience with critical reading than the author. I am not seeking to insult you, nor to place myself above you.
Just to get out my opinion, leaving contact information, even for the police, does not seem all that unreasonable to me.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
I wonder if the very high odds of a young man being non-sexually assaulted in public feed into this. Because in terms of raw stats, men in their twenties are at a very high risk of being victimised (and many of those injuries are arguably almost as severe as a rape, and sometimes are worse), but you don't get friendly reactions if you tell a dude he needs to be vigilant in the way a woman would be. Its seen as emasculating, or something, to worry about one's safety.
Speculation, but maybe some are frustrated at what they perceive to be women acting like pussies.
Honestly, I just don't like being told that it is reasonable for some one to assume that I might be a rapist without knowing anything at all about me.
It's a column from Details Magazine asking: Is it OK to demand anal sex?
One of the viewpoints is a man saying that he loves to get girls drunk so they will consent to it. (being implied that they would refuse sober)
I don't think you would see an equivalent of this in Cosmo.
article in question seems to be either gone or mislinked
I thought the photo was funny though
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I wish Pony felt the need to type out so much prose over the article about the TWO HOUR LONG GANGRAPE in the OP, instead of an article trying to explain why women might not find a guy dashing from the word go.
Posts
Seriously. Even when nothing bad happens, my first thought when some woman goes off alone with a stranger is 'have you suffered a debilitating head injury lately'?
And I've done it, full disclosure. I got a lift home from the club district from a stranger one night because I had no money and the trains had stopped running and the gig was shit and I was disappointed and tired. And it was an incredibly high risk to take, and I was pretty damn vigilant the whole time. He was a perfectly nice chap as it turns out, but I still kick myself about doing it. And don't you dare fucking demean me for being aware that I did something pretty stupid with my personal safety.
Whatever guys.
No, I'm not.
Because if there is actually a likely chance of her disappearing, she shouldn't be going out. And if there isn't, then she is being unhealthy by acting as though there is.
what the hell are you on about, here
no one's saying men are victims
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
17% chance of sexual assault in their lifetime.
That does not include the other bad things that can happen.
That does not include other factors which may raise the chances.
technically, what she's saying is "being a man labels you as a potential rapist"
which really isn't any different from thinking a black guy is going to rob you because he's black.
evan and pony in particular have been doing exactly that for pages - that's its a terrible awful thing that men aren't given the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time no matter what. And you know what, it isn't. Its ok to feel sad that women evaluate you with caution, but its not ok to turn it into a huge deal. Its definitely not ok to turn around and call women crazy for taking care of themselves.
This is actually a good point
If you aren't talking to someone, why would they be paying attention
It can, in fact, mean a lot of things!
It's just one component of a person's over-all body language. I actually know a great deal about body language, I spent many many years studying the subject in detail!
Folded arms, in and of itself, can mean a ton of different things. What is important to note is the combination of folded arms with the facial expression. Facial expressions can tell you tons about a person's current emotional state, more than their words can in many instances.
A woman sitting by herself on the subway, arms folded, jaw clenched, staring out the window with her eyebrows compressed and slowly breathing through her nose is best not disturbed. That woman looks pissed and even if she doesn't think you are a creepy rapist talking to her at all isn't likely to illicit a positive reaction.
A woman with her arms crossed who doesn't look pissed, her facial muscles relaxed, and is just sorta absently staring out with mid-speed pupil movement is probably daydreaming and is, potentially, approachable. She's likely got her arms folded because she's bored, especially if the seat she's on doesn't have arm rests.
I've certainly talked to women before who have been reading, and in fact my standard inroad is to ask them about or express interest in what they are reading. Doesn't always work, I've certainly had my share of fuck off looks as she goes back to her reading. I take the hint, of course, and don't pursue that further.
But, I've also had success with that same technique.
It's all about reading the initial body language, and paying attention to the reaction when you make your first words to them. Should be pretty obvious if she's interested in interacting with you at all.
This article is basically saying that if a woman is doing anything that isn't looking directly at you like she wants to chat, you should stay away lest you scare her with your boorish self.
That's silly and needless. Hyperbole? Perhaps. It's still bad advice.
What percentage of that sexual assault comes from strangers?
Someone you are going on a date with is not a stranger.
Where did I say anything about men being victims?
just because a scenario is wrong does not mean that some one has to be a victim.
"Girls worry about things you don't, take this into account and take notice of body language"
I am quite sure pony moves through his regular life without being hideously offended every day because he is being silently judged by strangers
I am somewhat less certain about evander but I still think the odds are good
What AG is doing is pretending that pony et al are creating a false equivalency between women's legitimate fear of being assaulted, and decent men's discomfort at being considered a possible assaulter.
Only no one's claiming that equivalency exists.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
sometimes yes, sometimes no
but the rest of the article ABSOLUTELY discusses strangers
Well, I point out where my concerns lie in the way that article, and you and Incen say "That's hyperbole/she's joking can't you see that?" and my response is no, Cat, I can't.
At least, not on an initial reading. I guess with you guys telling me she's using hyperbole for dramatic effect, I can re-read it and see that.
I still think it has bad advice. The whole "this woman is crazy" thing is only if her words are taken seriously at face value. If she's intentionally being hyperbolic for effect, that's of course different.
But, even then, the whole "If a woman isn't looking at you, don't talk to her" thing is facepalmingly bad advice.
It's a badly written article and doesn't really carry the point across properly that it's evidently trying to make.
Somehow it's okay to prepare myself in everyday situations against random strangers with mace or weapons, but it's not okay to prepare myself in a non-everyday situation where I am more vulnerable and with a stranger? It's not being irrational, especially if a person is aware of the statistics of sexual assault.
So you are upset that the article did not go into more detail on the full spectrum of body language then?
Do you know what a stranger is?
It is not someone you are on a date with, that's for fucking sure.
Before the date them may well be a stranger, if it is a blind date from some random internet lottery.
you know everyone who rides your subway?
Right. Like I said, the article should have assumed a lower level of literacy on the part of its readers.
o_O
Do you not know what part of the article is being talked about?
But as a Dude 101 piece, it could be better, I think.
I wonder if the very high odds of a young man being non-sexually assaulted in public feed into this. Because in terms of raw stats, men in their twenties are at a very high risk of being victimised (and many of those injuries are arguably almost as severe as a rape, and sometimes are worse), but you don't get friendly reactions if you tell a dude he needs to be vigilant in the way a woman would be. Its seen as emasculating, or something, to worry about one's safety.
Speculation, but maybe some are frustrated at what they perceive to be women acting like pussies.
No, I find the article annoying because it's tenor was "You don't know, so don't do anything".
It's advice was for a man to consider all the fucked up shit women unfortunately are forced to deal with when moving about in today's world (GOOD!), understand that, and then under almost no circumstance approach or speak to women unless expressly invited to do so. (BAD!)
Couple that with inflammatory language (You are Schreodinger's Rapist!) and it's a shitty article. You admit it "could've been written better", and that's all I am really saying.
She's not making bad points. She's making good points, badly. She's giving bad advice that, if taken seriously at face value will lead to A) Women being needlessly squirrelly and
The article is titled "guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" for Christ's sake!
You might find yourself saying "Oh, Pony, lighten up, that's obviously not meant to be taken that seriously" but then it becomes a question of how much of that article she actually means as real advice, isn't it?
The problem with coloring your writing with hyperbole and including real advice is you are expecting your intended audience to be able to tell the two apart without being clear about the distinction.
This can often be done badly, and this article is an example of that.
It's not at all unreasonable.
Personally I have the added protective layer of my insufferable mother who checks up on me constantly.
All of it.
Either answer the question, or don't. Stop trying to rewrite the article.
No, Incenjucar, and you should come off your high-horse before you pull a Christopher Reeve.
"A lower literacy level" implies that a person who doesn't see the easy distinction between her hyperbole and relevant points is somehow an idiot or "less literate".
This is you, doing something you are bad for, which is belittling someone who doesn't see something the way you do as an inferior. You're essentially talking down to me, and telling me that I have a "lower literacy level" because I don't see the clear distinction between her outrageous statements for effect and her bad advice and sly quasi-misandry and the handful of good points it makes.
It would be nice if you can admit that misreading this badly written article doesn't make me a moron. You're insulting folk like me directly for basically no other reason than I didn't read it the same way you did.
Don't be a prick.
The article is not written at the level you are reading it. I promise you, you are in error as to the actual content of the article at the level it was written.
It is a shitty article if it is intended for a general audience, I agree. Otherwise it is an roughly average article. As for the choice of language, you very clearly do not enjoy the terminology used by Feminist discourse, but you should be getting around the fact by now.
Yes, the text assumes you can figure out the subtext, which may be unfair.
I believe it is fair to assume that either the writer does not understand the intended audience, or did not intend the audience it has received.
Regardless, you have had the article explained to you, and should move on to reacting to that.
Honestly, I just don't like being told that it is reasonable for some one to assume that I might be a rapist without knowing anything at all about me.
17% wow, thats somewhere between 1 outta 5 and 1 outta 6. Imagine walking down the street silently counting females you pass. Every 6th one is/will be a rape victim, regardless of age or looks. That is fucking scaring me right now.
What are people opinions of women carrying mace to a date vs leaving contact info? or has that already been discussed?
So, is the stated audience ALSO hyperbole now>
they would seem to be pretty different things
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
http://www.feministing.com/archives/007339.html
It's a column from Details Magazine asking: Is it OK to demand anal sex?
One of the viewpoints is a man saying that he loves to get girls drunk so they will consent to it. (being implied that they would refuse sober)
I don't think you would see an equivalent of this in Cosmo.
Alright then: A lot of the advice in the article is bad. Some of it's good. It's a mixed bag. The bad doesn't invalidate the good, but you really gotta be choosy. For the purpose Gorilla originally posted it ("All guys should read this!") it's really bad, but I doubt that was the author's intent, looking around the site it was posted on.
Cass is right: It's a feminist article, written for feminists by a feminist. While it purports to be written "for guys", that's something of a literary device. Your average dude isn't the intended audience and that's not how it's written.
Which leaves me to question what the article's purpose is.
I'm not a feminist, Incenjucar. Are you? Perhaps you can explain this to me. Gorilla posted it for one reason but I doubt that was it's purpose. So, what is it?
You are less literate than the article assumes. This doesn't make you an idiot, it means that you very likely have less experience with critical reading than the author. I am not seeking to insult you, nor to place myself above you.
Statistically it is, however, absolutely reasonable.
you don't have to like it *shrug*
article in question seems to be either gone or mislinked
I thought the photo was funny though
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But whatever.