what elephant in the corner?

[electricland]

oh, you mean this elephant.

I was quite surprised by the response to my post on Tuesday. Also delighted. Also unnerved. (I hate confrontation.) But mostly fascinated.

This exchange has seemingly sparked off discussion all over my friends list, which is really cool. It's also catalyzed a ton of thoughts in my head, about feminism, about women's experience of the world, about neuroscience and evolutionary biology, about how we make sense of our daily experiences, which I won't attempt to post all at once because the post would be about a mile long. But bits are coming.

First, though, I want to thank everyone who posted for keeping the discussion comparatively civil even when the discussion got quite upsetting and even when you felt, rightly or wrongly, that you were being personally attacked. Let's keep it that way, 'k?

Second, I want to say how awed and grateful I am to know so many articulate, passionate, amazing women who are willing to stand up for their point of view and able explain things so much more clearly than I can.

For those of you just joining us:

I never thought my original post would lead to so much discussion and go down so many pathways. It was a fairly lighthearted post about an experience which I suspected would strike a chord for a lot of women: random guy speaks to you, you don't want to talk to him, he demands to know why you don't want to talk to him, you decline to give an explanation, he gets pissed off and tells her so. Boy was I ever right about that. A lot of women chimed in to say "Yup, been there," or "I HATE that!" or "Why do some men feel like they have the right to behave like that?"

And then a man posted, and it was clear from his comment that, even though he would probably never behave like that himself, he hadn't really got what the original post was about. He offered a counterexample: guy speaks to a random woman, she completely overreacts, he gets pissed off (but doesn't say anything). Another woman tried to explain why the two situations were different. And it went from there down a lot of pathways, like the actual statistics on violence, and how likely it is under a given circumstance that a woman or a man will be attacked, whether women's caution and fear in certain spaces is legitimate, and so on. All of which was very interesting, because our male poster -- I'm willing to believe, not out of malice, but in a positive attempt to be helpful -- really was not getting it. He encouraged the women posters in the thread to stand up for themselves, learn self-defense, be willing to fight back. (These are all positive things, incidentally.) He pointed out that men get attacked and killed too. What he didn't seem to be able to grasp was that women's subjective experience, what we go through daily from the time we are very young indeed, is different than a man's, and that this of necessity shapes our behaviour and our responses to other people. That sometimes not being friendly to Random Guy is part of our self-defence strategy. He was, I think, really upset to think that some women walk around with these constant calculations in our heads.

Where I think he had a disconnect in his thinking is in assuming that these experiences, these considerations, make us feel weak and afraid and powerless. (Jump in any time if I'm totally misinterpreting.) I'm guessing that the women he knows don't seem weak and afraid and powerless, so he assumes that they don't have these considerations and experiences in the background. I am betting, and the other women in that thread are betting, that they do. We all do. We move on, we deal, we make jokes about them, we don't keep them in the forefront of our lives. But they colour our experiences and our reactions, and we would actually be very stupid and foolhardy not to let this happen, because that is how instinct and gut reaction help keep us safe. Split-second reactions are the result of your brain integrating an enormous body of accumulated life experience and coming to a decision without being consciously aware of it happening. Allowing for the fact that everyone is an individual, women's accumulated experience is different than men's, and their reactions will therefore also be different, and it is not weak or anti-feminist to say so.

One last thing (for now). Every individual human being's life is a collection of subjective experiences. By definition, I can't know everything about what's happening in another person's head, what's happened to them over the course of their lives, because I'm not them. (Children typically gain this awareness that not everyone has the same collection of experience and knowledge at around age 4. Children with a developmental disability, or brain-damaged adults, may not have this awareness.) But that doesn't mean that those experiences are not real. To look at my post from Tuesday, at the comments of a lot of women who've had similar experiences, and to say "Well, I've never experienced that, and it's just you, it doesn't apply to all women, so it's not relevant and it's nothing to do with me" is not only unhelpful, it's profoundly insulting. It also treats a near-universal social problem as an individual problem to be solved by individual women.

More to come.

Comments

[wanderingaengus.livejournal.com]

Margaret Atwood once asked a class what scared them about the opposite sex. The men were all afraid women would laugh at them. The women were all afraid men would kill them.

[ladyjestyr.livejournal.com]

I missed all the comments, since I read your post shortly after you made it, but one thing that surprised me was the mindset most of the females in the thread seemed to promulgate - that constant weighing-up, assessing, calculating; being aware of risks.

That is totally alien to my mindset, and - I would bet - the same to all of my female friends (well, except one who's in a wheelchair and is therefore careful about /everything/).

So, I *would* challenge the generalisation that women have this fundamental different attitude to the world than men do. The espoused attitude there was totally different to /my/ attitude.

The divide may come down to locale, but I was as surprised as your male poster to hear that "all women feel this way". I sure don't. If I was one of the guy's female friends that he was told to poll, I would have looked blankly at him and said "um, what are they talking about?!"

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

He encouraged the women posters in the thread to stand up for themselves, learn self-defense, be willing to fight back.

Which is putting responsability on the victim of not being a victim, rather than on the harrasser of not harrassing in the first place.

In other words, it's women's fault if men won't take no for an answer! Bullshit.

To look at my post from Tuesday, at the comments of a lot of women who've had similar experiences, and to say "Well, I've never experienced that, and it's just you, it doesn't apply to all women, so it's not relevant and it's nothing to do with me" is not only unhelpful, it's profoundly insulting. It also treats a near-universal social problem as an individual problem to be solved by individual women.

Indeed. More victim-blaming behaviour, to refuse to even acknowledge the victim's experience as reality. And it bespeaks enormous privilege and entitlement.

[elissa-carey.livejournal.com]

*nod* No, nothing you've said was wrong that I could see.

I don't have to do that all the time, since most of my time is spent at home, but when I am out and about, wherever I am, I keep at least a general sort of tabs on my surroundings. Having had a negative experience or two before, and having learned to trust my gut on many occasions (the gut has been 90-95% correct), I listen to my gut reactions all the time. If I start feeling uncomfortable, I do whatever needs doing to stop that. It is a survival mechanism, and an unfortunately necessary one.

Where this overlaps with feminism and society... well, that could get long. But feminism is about seeking equal opportunity (not blanket equality) for women, and having women recognized as equally valued members of society and not just adjuncts to their male counterparts. Society has been making advances toward this, and for that I am very grateful and happy.

Where it breaks down, however, is in the media and in individual households where "traditional values" means that the woman stays home and manages the house (and kids, if she has any), and she has no other say elsewhere. Or worse, in areas where women are seen as trophies or property. (Any person who says, "MY woman" without being tongue in cheek gets me angry. Ditto with "MY man," in case someone wanted to point out an inequity in my argument.)

So long as this still happens, where you have rampant portrayals and ideas where women are seen and valued more as an object, for the service she can provide rather than the person she is, women will still be subjected to behaviors as relatively innocuous as the "Nice Guy" (see Heartless Bitches for a good definition), to as dangerous as rape, torture and murder. No matter where we live, we all need to be on our guard for any and all of these, and hopefully be pleasantly surprised when none comes our way.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I did poll my friends and while it's not completely alien to all, they definitely don't think you can categorize half of the population like that. Which was all I was objecting to.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

I agreed with your earlier post and I agree with this one (and not just because I've spent time in bars with you ;]).

That sometimes not being friendly to Random Guy is part of our self-defence strategy. He was, I think, really upset to think that some women walk around with these constant calculations in our heads.

I think, if I can try to expand further on your thought, it's not that women (or the women I know and can reasonably speak for) size every man we meet on the street or in a bar up as a potential rapist but women, and certainly women of my/our generation were raised to be more aware of the risk and prevalence of sexual violence than earlier generations of women. Not because the 70/80s were more violent but because the women's movement were suceeding in bringing these issues to light and creating an awareness of them that went beyond "good girls don't" and taking the first steps towards de-stigmatizing the victims of sexual violence, who continue to be overwhelmingly female.

Part of this involves putting the blame for sexual predation on the predators where it belongs. So young women are told to be careful about walking alone at night, about drugs and alcohol, going into boys' roooms, watching your drink in bars lest some creep slip you a mickey, for pity's sake--it's no wonder that women are sometimes overly cautious around unfamiliar men, particularly in places like bars. This is part and parcel of the standing up, defending, willingness to fight that your male poster suggests women should embrace.

No one wants to live in fear, no one wants to be so hyper-aware of their safety that they become paranoid or emotionally stunted. But sometimes, for some people, getting tough and taking care of yourself means sacrificing some of the nice. And guys need to learn that they can't have their cake and eat it too--either women need to be responsible for their own safety (setting aside the blame the victim bullshit), in which case, we're not goint to be sunshine and happy faces to every random guy that comes up and starts chatting us up, or not, in which case, guys need to suck it up and take issues like date rape and put some teeth behind slogans like "no means no."

It's not the 1950s (and I'm pretty sure the 1950s weren't the 1950s) and it's not one big malt shoppe out there. I'd far rather raise my daughters and nieces to be strong and self-confident and smart about their safety, and if that means they're a little curt sometimes, better that then the alternative.

Another male's point of view

[gurudata.livejournal.com]

Hiho,

Ignoring the way-OT tangents that that commentary thread took (like, egads!), I would like to offer another male perspective on the original comments made there...

1) First of all, when the male poster said the words "I can't wait to tell my girlfriend.", I just assumed his entire post was dripping in humour and sarcasm. It's interesting to me to now see that a) others didn't see it that way, and b) he doesn't even seem to be claiming that now... *shrug*

2) That aside, there was a lot of posting there about the female experience being different from the male experience, and I absolutely believe that. So from my male experience (which, in my case, includes having spent most of my life with mostly female friends, so I've had a LOT of conversations about topics very similar to this one), let me tell you that I perceive part of the problem is the following:

When a strange man comes up to you and says: "Come over here and talk to me."

You perhaps hear: "Come over here, and I may be a nice guy... or I may be dangerous. You have no way to tell." and react with "Better safe than sorry, I'll say no".

But when you say "I don't want to."

Most men, having no real understanding of the fear which women have, will in fact hear something like: "I have somehow magically sussed you out from your 3 seconds of speaking to me and have come to the conclusion that YOU, specifically, are either uninteresting or dangerous."

In other words, you may be expressing caution towards all men as a gender; but we are most likely to interpret that as rejection of ourselves, one specific human being. It rarely if ever occurs to us that what's being expressed is "caution about strange men in general" rather than "rejection of ME specifically".

You asked how you could have handled the situation differently? I'm not sure there's anything, but the best I could offer is to suggest making it clear that it's not something specific about the person in question that lead to the "No, thanks". But that said, I don't know if even outright saying something like "I'm just not interested in speaking with anybody I don't know right now, thanks" would work. Cuz, you know, being men, we'd just assume that you're trying to find a nice way to reject us. You bitches. :)

Cu,
Andrew

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

Yes, you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

I responded to your initial post of a man being a jackass with one of a woman being a jackass. Just to balance things out a bit.

Then an angry responder starting speaking FOR ALL WOMEN and saying things about their mindsets and attitudes that most women I know would find offensive.

Then things digressed into a morass arguments that mostly seemed to have nothing to do with my position that one person can't just decide to speak for everyone without being foolish. Trying to make all of any large demographic fit into one set of assumptions is called stereotyping where I come from. I was always taught not to do it. Obviously, that is not near-universal.

Interestingly enough, the whole "weaker and smaller" thing came up yesterday in conversation on our porch when the woman who lives downstairs was talking about working security. This one place she worked wouldn't let women work the mosh pit because they were "smaller and weaker". And we all had a disgusted laugh about that.

when moominmuppet (sorry I don't know the actual lj tag for that)my roommate asked, "And were you smaller and weaker than all of the men who worked security?" she was answered, "No! I was bigger and stronger than most of them."

Anyway, I'm sorry I started this whole debacle. There's nothing quite so much fun as getting a steady stream of hate e-mail from people who want to argue something because they get all emotional without actually reading what they're arguing against.

Re: Another male's point of view

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

My initial response was both humorous and in earnest. Because I've had women who I was not hitting on get all weird on me as if I was and not doing it effectively.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

Is there sonething wrong with me? I've only just dipped into the discussion, but I think I've got the gist. And I'm flabberghasted that all these women are so afraid! Now, admittedly, I've never been in a situation like the one you described in the first place. I've almost always said "no, please go away". No man has ever accused me of being bitchy for rejecting them. No man has ever had a go at me for not wanting to talk to them. But that's not what I find so curious. It's this:

I have never been afraid. I have never thought about potential risks and dangers involved in talking to someone. I don't constantly evaluate my surroundings, unless I'm walking home alone. Admittedly, if I was in the street by myself and at night, and some stranger said to me "Come talk to me", I'd run like no woman has run before. But that, I gather, is not the point here.

I'm astonished so many women allow themselves to be so scared that they think of themselves as victims. Because we're not.

And I'm sure it's not just me :) Well done for keeping this discussion going, Ell, as always, LJ provides an apt forum to hear other people's points of view(s)!

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

You take an issue where gender inequality is involved and reply with something that is supposed to even things out and you wonder why you get outraged reaction?

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

I'm astonished so many women allow themselves to be so scared that they think of themselves as victims. Because we're not.

So first you blame women for being victims and then you deny they're victims and yet you say that if you'd been in their situation you'd have run.

Why do you put the responsability on women for being scared instead of putting it on the men who cause the danger women are afraid of in the first place?

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

I'm astonished so many women allow themselves to be so scared that they think of themselves as victims. Because we're not

If I may, I think you've missed the point a bit. It's not about being scared or thinking of myself/yourself/the women I know well as victims, it's about being smart and being just a little bit more on guard, which I believe is different than being scared.

And I'm willing to believe that there's a geographic component, that women who grow up in bigger, nastier cities (and I'm thinking of Toronto, New York, Montreal, London, Paris-size cities) are more aware of this than other women because to a certain extent, the message that you need to be careful, you need to be wary (not afraid but wary, which is different) of strangers has been impressed on us (and, to be fair, all young kids--the difference is that as boys get older, the warnings tail off, and they just don't for young women) since the first time we were allowed to go to the playground by ourselves (and in many cases earlier). I do know that growing up in Toronto, I and my peers were possibly hyper-aware of the issue between the rape/murders of Alison Parrot, Leslie Mahaffey, Kristen French, the Scarborough Rapes and the Montreal Massacre all occuring within a span of five years. But then again, two years ago, a 10 year-old girl names Holly Jones was snatched, raped and murdered, walking the two blocks between her friend's house and her home in a downtown Toronto neighbourhood. This stuff is out there, it happens, and it is thankfully statistically-speaking a rarity, it happens often enought that it forms part of the our cultural consciousness.

There is a difference between being afraid and being concerned and a difference between feeling like a victim and knowing that you could be a victim--a difference that I think is often obscured in these kinds of debates.

[raithen.livejournal.com]

I'm not scared, actually - just aware. And that awareness never stops me from doing anything.

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

Whatever reaction we have -- being scared, being concerned, being smart and conscious of our surroundings, being expert at self-defense, or oblivious -- is not the point. Because our behaviour isn't causing the problem, isn't killing, raping, harrassing or otherwise threatening women. And all the focus that falls on our behaviour is a form of scapegoating: making it okay for some women to be victims to make the rest of us feel better. It fails to address the behaviour that actually causes the victimisation, the actions and the class identity of the rapists, harrassers, murderers, bullies and other domestic terrorists.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

Aye, I could've thought that through better. And I should've phrased it better! I don't blame women for being victims, I've just never thought of myself as one. Even if I'm running from something - be that a man, a woman, or a scary big dog - I'm protecting myself but I don't feel like a victim. Maybe I have the wrong definition of victim. Or maybe my English skills just won't allow me to understand the word in the same sense as native English speakers do.

Apologies if I've offended.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

*nods* I agree, I appear to have misunderstood. I have already apologised (see above). Thanks for the insight! (And I remember my mum putting cut-out newspaper clips of rapes in our area on my breakfast plate. So I'd be "wary". I don't know...I may just be too naive to believe anything could possibly happen to me.)

[metawidget]

I guess I don't know why anyone has the right to expect the world to be unconditionally friendly: people can't expect every attempt to strike up conversation to be met enthusiastically, nor do they have to assume good intentions on the part of someone that creeps them out.

Friendliness is a gift we can give when we feel like it, not a tax we pay on every moment out in the open. To be busy, or cold, or just not interested is everyone's right, and makes real friendliness worth more.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

Well, in the face of all the evil stuff that seems to be going on, awareness is probably the safest option. I'm more of the carefree variety. Which might not be the most sensible thing to do. Something to ponder!

*goes off to ponder*

It just occurred to me that I haven't walked home alone since a woman was assaulted around the corner from where I live. Maybe I'm more scared than I thought. More pondering needed :)

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

It fails to address the behaviour that actually causes the victimisation, the actions and the class identity of the rapists, harrassers, murderers, bullies and other domestic terrorists.

True but I wasn't trying to address that issue. And I think, in the context of how women and men relate in public zones, the issue of whether or not women's attitudes and behaviour is perceived as paranoia or a healthy degree of caution is important and is exactly on point.

We aren't talking about who is responsible for violence against women but whether or how women react or are conditioned to react in response to the potential threat of violence is reasonable and justified. To reduce the argument to who is responsible for violence, the perpetrator or the victim, rather than how people response to the prevalence of violence, merely polarizes the debate and, in this instance, I believe is ultimately fruitless.

In as much as men (by which I mean male legislators, media producers, and authority figures) need to address violence against women both physical and the passive attitudes and treatment of women that creates a culture where such violence is possible, you also need to create a culture where women's concerns about being potential victims of violence are taken seriously. As long as the argument that "well, that's not my experience/I don't feel victimized" and the implied corollory that women who do or who are more cautious are reacting in a way that is extreme or unjustified, you cannot expect to address the larger issue.

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

Partly it's also a function of age. I was much more invulnerable when I was younger. The older I get, the more mortal I feel (which kinda sucks).

[raithen.livejournal.com]

pondering is good :D. It's one of the things I have greatly appreciated about this thread - I am thinking about important issues!!

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

you also need to create a culture where women's concerns about being potential victims of violence are taken seriously.

I agree.

the issue of whether or not women's attitudes and behaviour is perceived as paranoia or a healthy degree of caution is important and is exactly on point.

This cannot be determined by examining the woman's reaction alone. It must be put in context.

I completely agree that first, women must be heard, but in order to assess the validity of women's reactions, you have to look at the actions that cause those reactions. Otherwise you end up justifying women's fears by claiming special psychology, when the issue is a social problem.

[erbie.livejournal.com]

Or maybe you're not scared, just cautious, which was my original point in the original discussion. You don't have to live your life in fear to be cautious. Because that stuff is out there, because most women know someone who has been accosted, or in some manner assaulted, we *do* need to take the responsibility of protection on ourselves, because no-one else is going to do it. That doesn't make it right, and it still puts the onus of protection on the potential victim, but it is reality. If a woman wants to keep herself safe, she needs to be aware and sometimes, it means she's going to not be as friendly to a particular man as he might like. If he's a Nice Guy, he should be aware of how women have to live our lives, and suck it up. If he's not, tough shit. I'm far less concerned about protecting some random guy's delicate feelings than I am about keeping myself out of potential situations.

Part of the problem is that men who think of themselves as Nice Guys don't tend to see the reality of women's experience. If they truly want to make a difference, then they need to open themselves to it, stop feeling personally attacked if a woman doesn't respond to their friendliness and get out of denial.

A good source of facts and more information is Gavin de Becker's book "The Gift of Fear". He's a professional security consultant to celebrities, politicians, and others. He knows what he's talking about.

[elissa-carey.livejournal.com]

1. And I'm willing to believe that there's a geographic component, that women who grow up in bigger, nastier cities (and I'm thinking of Toronto, New York, Montreal, London, Paris-size cities) are more aware of this than other women ...
2. There is a difference between being afraid and being concerned and a difference between feeling like a victim and knowing that you could be a victim--a difference that I think is often obscured in these kinds of debates.

I think you are very right about both. This ought to be repeated. Safety isn't just about not taking unnecessary risks, but being smart about your interactions and being aware of your surroundings in general.