12:42 PMThe answer to your question, which your boyfriend probably doesn't quite know how to express, is approximately yes. Men are killers by nature, especially when they are young. I think this is one of the things women have the most trouble imagining about what it is like to be a man, and it is certainly one of the thing that civilization works hardest to hide about the human condition. Civilization works very hard to achieve social harmony.
I am in a hotel in Washington, DC, and my boyfriend is taking a bath, reading. I barge in, demanding to know if all men are terrible, eyes blazing. He tries to calm me down, but I am upset.
I leave the bathroom in a huff.
Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.I imagine the young woman would think I was a terrible person too, but I would never harm a lady. I have spent a fair portion of my life learning how to kill other men. I would, though, lay down my life on any instant -- today or any day -- to stop one of these massacres from happening. California has done everything it can do to put the brakes on people like me.
The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective).
Since the massacre a lot of the momentum has been not directly related to the kind of deadly dangerous misogyny displayed by these little monsters, but on feminist objections to what they call 'everyday sexism.' Amanda Hess explains that her male readers are shocked by this, because they never encounter it:
Among men, misogyny hides in plain sight, and not just because most men are oblivious to the problem or callous toward its impact. Men who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren’t around.What comes across strikingly to me, reading this, is the degree to which the most effective solution to the problem of bad men is good men. The protection afforded by a good man who loves you or befriends you is so great that the problem effectively disappears while they are around. This is not because harassers respect other men more than you, but because they are afraid of us.
...
It was early on a weekend morning, and the streets that had been full of pedestrians the night before were now quiet. When I paused outside a convenience store to stretch, a man sitting at a bus stop across the street from me began yelling obscene comments about my body. When my boyfriend came out of the convenience store, he shut up.
These are forms of male aggression that only women see. But even when men are afforded a front seat to harassment, they don’t always have the correct vantage point for recognizing the subtlety of its operation. Four years before the murders, I was sitting in a bar in Washington, D.C. with a male friend. Another young woman was alone at the bar when an older man scooted next to her. He was aggressive, wasted, and sitting too close, but she smiled curtly at his ramblings and laughed softly at his jokes as she patiently downed her drink. “Why is she humoring him?” my friend asked me. “You would never do that.” I was too embarrassed to say: “Because he looks scary” and “I do it all the time.”
Women who have experienced this can recognize that placating these men is a rational choice, a form of self-defense to protect against setting off an aggressor. But to male bystanders, it often looks like a warm welcome, and that helps to shift blame in the public eye from the harasser and onto his target, who’s failed to respond with the type of masculine bravado that men more easily recognize.
They ought to be. Some of us are far, far more terrible than they are.
This seems to me to be a clear-cut case when men and women ought to be working together. If a man is making you uncomfortable, tell a man you know and trust. If you see another woman and recognize, from your experience, that she is afraid, help a man you know and trust understand what is going on and ask him to help her. Then back him up, especially if other women question why he is intruding -- tell them why you asked him to help. Defend the principle that it might be OK to ask a man for help with another man, that it isn't an affront to women's rights to have friendships with men who will defend them and help them enjoy the freedom to move and live as they wish. Say that they are being good men, and requite their defense of women with a defense of them.
There is a section of links on the sidebar called "Frith & Freedom," which includes debates about the role of friendship in making us free. This is the Old English word frith, which is related to the root word for freedom. The idea was that the world is dangerous, full of natural forces and enemies alike. To live a free and worthy life, we needed friends who would fight for us and for whom we would bear friendship in return. This is how a free life, a good life, becomes possible in a hostile world.
From the woman's own words:
ReplyDeleteMen who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren’t around.
There's a hint there that seems to refute a major part of her thesis. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
From your own words:
Men are killers by nature, especially when they are young. I think this is one of the things women have the most trouble imagining about what it is like to be a man....
This is certainly true. My wife has been with me for 98 years, and she still has trouble understanding the ferocity of my...competitiveness. It's not all that, but consider the context. It showed in our Krav class, too, a coed class (taught by a guy who had no understanding of the mindsets of his female students; the blindness runs both ways). The women had no understanding of the ferocity of us men as we trained and practiced (it wasn't all that, but...the context), even when they experienced it as we practiced with/on them and they practiced with/on us.
Even our female instructor. She ran, for a bit, a women-only class to teach them how to resist/defeat a male attacker. I offered to be, in her class, an attacker/punching dummy. She asked why I would want to do that, with an obvious subtext to her question of [I must be a masher].
Eric Hines
It was mentioned over at Cass' page that I had observed men harassing women only a handful of times, and intervened each time. Cass said (much as Amanda Hess did) that they tend to do this out of the sight of other men. And I can believe that. But really, think about what this says. The men know what they are doing is wrong, and shameful. So much so, that they hide it from those who can stop them.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is that if women know that, and if they know that other men can and do stop these predators, why they would not seek aid from men they know and trust. Why is it shameful to ask for help? From experience, there are many times I seek help from women in areas where they have more experience, knowledge, and strength than I do. Why is there a stigma on women doing the same?
Is this blow back from the feminist movement's belief that a woman does not need a man ("like a fish needs a bicycle" I believe the saying went)? Are women afraid that asking for help makes them "weak"? Such utter nonsense. None of us make it through this world alone. Why should anyone WANT to?
I think the concept is that, in a traditional society, a woman accepting a man's protection meant in some degree accepting his dominance.
ReplyDeleteThat's not at all necessary, however, which is why I mention the frith discussions. Men also use friendships to obtain (among other things) a capacity to resist other men, in order to capture a space in which they can live a good life. Men and women who marry by the same token end up supporting each other at different times. It is possible to have the relationship in a framework of rough equality. In any case, it wouldn't be doing anything men don't also do -- and for just the same reasons.
I'm not sure whether these men think it's wrong/shameful so much as they are less likely to badger a woman in the presence of potential competitors (or potential punishers).
ReplyDeleteAs to whether women don't approach men to protect them, I don't understand the question.
Do I want only to be able to go out with a male protector? Of course not. That's why I don't live in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Some random guy on the street isn't going to be there anymore by the time I track down a male protector, return to the scene of the "crime" with him in tow, and watch him unleash Heck :p
How many small men would want to trust in a bigger, stronger man to protect them everywhere they go?
I sympathize with feminists to some degree because I look at our culture and it's one in which graphic depictions of rape are viewed as harmless sexual fantasy; as "entertainment". Groups of children are gang raping other children because... well, monkey see, monkey do. Watching conservatives go apesh** over the outrageous suggestion that our culture should teach that certain behaviors are not (in fact) acceptable at all is one of the more confusing things in life to me.
I thought that went without saying? So why object to saying it (and teaching it)?
On the otter heiny, I don't believe for a second that these behaviors will magically stop just because we teach that they're wrong. We teach that murder and theft are wrong too, and some subset of the population still steal and murder others. It will discourage these behaviors among the set of people who aren't incorrigible; the ones who can be influenced.
And that's actually quite valuable.
It will do nothing to stop the hard core twits.
Good to see you, Cass. I've been wondering after you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the argument should be that women should 'only' go out with male protectors. Certainly I've personally instructed many women who asked in martial arts, and a few who were worried about their personal safety and wanted to know how to use a firearm safely and effectively.
On the other hand, there's a clear example here of a benefit that can be had from working together. Good men really benefit from having a sense of being important to the women in their lives; and bad men stop their bad behaviors as long as we're around.
It should be possible to avoid framing this as "Women should depend on male protection" or as "Women should never have to depend on a man for anything." Of course I fully support women protecting themselves, and will gladly assist them in obtaining the skills and abilities to do so. I'll also support them in other ways, if they find themselves intimidated and want support in ending unwelcome behaviors.
I'm not thinking about this in terms of 'a small man going out with a big man for protection,' but in terms of how we rode out in Iraq. We looked out for each other. What I ask in return -- since friendships are these kinds of mutual relationships -- is their defense of me to requite my defense of them. This is more likely to be a rhetorical defense than a physical one, but one is sometimes needed. It would be nice to hear, "I'm glad to have him around. I like that he is here. I appreciate that he will put a stop to men who are being abusive. He makes me feel safe."
A few words may seem like small stuff, but it isn't. Words like that would mean a great deal.
As you know, I don't think either men or women should never have to depend on each other.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem here is that it's hard to encapsulate my thoughts in a comment box. It may require a post to work through. I hear what you are saying about how men need to hear that they are wanted and valued, but honestly women need to hear the same thing from men.
I think my point here is that being protected by men isn't a solution to the problem unless you only go out when accompanied by a man. I'm objecting more to the framing of good man as the solution than anything else, because as a practical matter I spend very little of my time in the company of male protectors.
That's because I - like pretty much everyone else I know - want to be as independent as I can. That doesn't mean men can't be useful to me, but frankly my husband is too busy to tag along with me all day on the off chance that some nitwit offends me. That's not something I could reasonably ask of my male friends or co-workers either.
Like rape (or sexual assault, or whatever we're calling it this week), these things tend to happen when no one else is around. So that's why I'm confused by the suggestion that having a good man around is a solution to the problem.
Am I making sense? It's not a denial that men can help - like you, I sense that bad men are deterred by good men. It's more a practical objection to expecting someone to be there for me all the time.
Frankly, I'd like to see more good men object to toxic popular culture. I think that would be tremendously helpful.
ReplyDeleteI have also almost lost hope that men in large numbers will ever do this. You do it. I hear MikeD do it and many others here in the Hall or over at VC. But on other sites I see/hear conservative men saying perfectly awful things.
Yes, some of this is blowback.
But I always think, "Good Lord - I hope no young impressionable men are reading this nonsense." We need strong male leaders, but some of us are so busy pushing back against a small number of loud feminists that they say truly horrific things that send entirely the wrong message to younger men about the kind of behavior that will be tolerated by other men.
And honestly, most of our interactions are verbal rather than physical in the modern world so words matter greatly.
Well, for what it's worth, I'm glad to have you around. And Tex, and Elise (when she can be); and Sly, and Valerie, and all the rest of you who comment less often. I try to make the place welcoming and comfortable for you. I often refrain from posting things that I like but that might not be pleasant for you. (A lesson you taught me some years ago, by commenting that the Internet is almost by definition a public place -- excepting some password-protected fora, I think that's right.)
ReplyDeleteLike rape (or sexual assault, or whatever we're calling it this week), these things tend to happen when no one else is around. So that's why I'm confused by the suggestion that having a good man around is a solution to the problem.
There are two answers to that. The first one is that, if we are talking about serious violence (your examples are rape and sexual assault), it is wise to have an internal defensive capacity and also, if you think you are going into a place where it is especially dangerous, to have friends.
But the other answer is that a lot of the commentary around this incident has swayed away from serious violence, and turned toward everyday incidents in the neighborhood or the workplace. One of Hess' examples is something that was happening in front of her and her male friend. She didn't explain what was going on, she says, out of embarrassment. But if she had, he could have gone over to the young lady at the bar and said something like, "Excuse me, but my friend Amanda wanted to know if you'd come over and join us for a bit." That would give her a graceful exit, and also enable the natural suppression of abusiveness that occurs when another (better) man is around.
I'm thinking we could do a lot for each other, anyway, with this kind of communication and mutual support.
...the other answer is that a lot of the commentary around this incident has swayed away from serious violence, and turned toward everyday incidents in the neighborhood or the workplace. One of Hess' examples is something that was happening in front of her and her male friend. She didn't explain what was going on, she says, out of embarrassment. But if she had, he could have gone over to the young lady at the bar and said something like, "Excuse me, but my friend Amanda wanted to know if you'd come over and join us for a bit." That would give her a graceful exit, and also enable the natural suppression of abusiveness that occurs when another (better) man is around.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right about this. I also have a bit of a problem with the expectation that everywhere should be safe and pleasant.
I think there's a valid point about things women have to deal with, but let's face it - men aren't immune from unpleasant interactions with other men (physical and verbal) either. Women need to develop some skills and situational awareness rather than expecting the world to be a better place than it is.
I think the concept is that, in a traditional society, a woman accepting a man's protection meant in some degree accepting his dominance.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is so for some women, but I'm not aware of feeling that way. It's not as though I don't know my husband can overpower me physically any time he feels like it. It's obvious and there's no "accept" or "not accept" unless a person is a complete moron (I'd like to think I'm not).
It's frankly amazing to me that this is at all difficult for men to understand. There are plenty of situations in life where women can be of tremendous use to men, and from what I've observed, men are extremely reluctant to avail themselves of our help (and extremely reluctant to be seen as needing or wanting help).
Why is a behavior men exhibit all the time so difficult to understand in women? I don't get it?
The only way I can explain it is to think that in your minds, we are naturally weaker so we should accept help. But I'm being uncomfortably honest here: there are areas in life where I think men need women's help too. I understand why men want to handle their own problems, though.
"I think the concept is that, in a traditional society, a woman accepting a man's protection meant in some degree accepting his dominance."
ReplyDeleteThere's something to this. It's not a trade I've ever been willing to make, but there's no question that I had to put a lot of guys out of bounds in order to avoid being asked to make it, or to avoid being made to feel I'd accepted part of a bargain and now owed the other half.
Sure, in an ideal world, no man would exact this as his price, but in the actual world of the last million years or so it's a fairly prominent trend. I'm lucky to live in an era and a society where, if I'm careful, I don't have to be forced into that corner--which is one reason I'm rarely nostalgic for the good old days.
Having said all that, I wouldn't want any good man to read my words and doubt my enormous admiration and gratitude. The willingness to use one's strength and risk one's safety to prevent a wrong is the pinnacle of human worth. To identify with the victim, saying, in effect, "If you're going to persist in that action, you're going to have to come through me"--that's everything that's beautiful and valuable about families, unions, friendships, and all the ways people adhere to each other in civilization to improve things for all.
To identify with the victim, saying, in effect, "If you're going to persist in that action, you're going to have to come through me"--that's everything that's beautiful and valuable about families, unions, friendships, and all the ways people adhere to each other in civilization to improve things for all.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Tex.
Hear, hear, Tex.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
I think part of the problem here is that it's hard to encapsulate my thoughts in a comment box. It may require a post to work through. I hear what you are saying about how men need to hear that they are wanted and valued, but honestly women need to hear the same thing from men.
ReplyDeleteOr better yet a meet up! :P
I agree, Cass. And I do my best to do so. Especially when I reach out for help. I try and make it clear that I need their insight, wisdom, guidance, experience, or whatever may be applicable, and let them know that I am coming to them because I trust and respect them.
It's frankly amazing to me that this is at all difficult for men to understand. There are plenty of situations in life where women can be of tremendous use to men, and from what I've observed, men are extremely reluctant to avail themselves of our help (and extremely reluctant to be seen as needing or wanting help).
I discovered long ago that it was far more useful asking for help, or admitting when I didn't know something than to flail around pretending I had all the answers. It is only embarrassing if you let it be.
The only way I can explain it is to think that in your minds, we are naturally weaker so we should accept help. But I'm being uncomfortably honest here: there are areas in life where I think men need women's help too. I understand why men want to handle their own problems, though.
I truly hope you don't think I believe you to be "weak". Because that is certainly not true. Weaker in some areas, stronger in others, certainly. I'm pretty confident that I'm more proficient at field stripping an M-16, or perhaps building a computer from components. And I'm almost certain I could beat you in a foot race right now (:P). But I know you have strengths I lack, insights I don't have, and skills I've never learned. I do not believe there is anyone alive who never needs anything from anyone else or who is stronger, more knowledgeable, and more skilled than everyone else.
One of the concepts my wife and I worked out early on was that we are a team. We work together to help cover for the other when we're weaker. If I'm sick, she takes care of me and picks up the slack. Where I have a skill she doesn't, I cover for her. But it's not a game where we're scoring points, we're working towards the same goal. Would I say she's weaker than me, simply because I can work and she can't? Hardly. Most frequently, she is my emotional rock, and the one I rely upon. Sometimes that role reverses (like when her father was gravely ill a couple of weeks back), but we get through it together.
I supposed that's a lot easier when you have that level of trust and intimacy. But I can't help but think of the example of the woman in the bar. It doesn't require all that much trust for the author to turn to her male friend and say, "she is defending herself the only way she has available, why don't you offer to have her join us?" as Grim said. Why would you not spare that much compassion for someone, even a stranger, who is in need of aid. The author clearly knows that the predatory behavior that the one man was exhibiting is suppressed (for whatever reason... shame, fear of a competetor, etc) by the presence/attention of another man. So why would she not ask her friend to intervene? I'm not even talking about asking him to rescue herself, but to help out someone in distress. Is it that stigmatized?
If I see a man on the side of the road having trouble changing a flat, I would at least offer to help. But if I don't know someone's in trouble (as the author's male friend did not), I won't know that I NEED to speak up against it. Or intervene.
I think we all know the world is a better place when people can trust each other enough to admit vulnerability and ask for help. We also know that's easier said than done, and it's a mark of a healthy intimacy when it comes naturally. So that solves the problem with a tiny circle of intimates, but there's still a big society out there.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be great if the society at large was more like a good marriage and less like a prison culture? Unfortunately, lots of the time it's more like the prison culture. You show up, you look around, and you quickly realize that your fellow inmates come in some basic groups. One is your brother, unfairly imprisoned along with you. He'll help you because he's and good guy and he knows you'll have his back when it counts, too. Many won't jack with you out of the blue, but they won't risk anything to stand up for you, either. Some may be interested in forming a kind of gang with you, for mutual solidarity and protection, with more or less mutual respect.
And then you really have to watch out for the ones who offer what amounts to a protection racket. They may be willing to protect you, but you're not going to like the role you've got to play in return.
Now suppose you're physically weaker than half the guys in the prison. Aren't you going to exercise a lot of care in deciding what kind of protection you're willing to ask for, and figuring out what the quid pro quo will be? It's not a tabula rasa. You've seen how it often works in practice.
Luckily most of the time we're surrounded by people a whole lot nicer than the average prison inmate. I make the analogy largely because it may help guys to imagine a scenario in which you're smaller and weaker and in a crowd including a meaningful fraction of guys ready and willing to take advantage of that at any moment.
I have a problem with Amanda Hess' bar scenario somewhat tangential to Grim's point: Why didn't Ms. Hess herself go over to the woman apparently being harassed by the drunk guy? It's not like this was a dark alley where he could overpower both women - this was a bar with people in it, including a male friend of Ms. Hess'. She herself could have approached the woman, asked for a moment of her time out of earshot of the drunk guy, and offered help of various kinds: to have the harassed woman sit with her and her male companion; to approach the bartender; to call her a cab and wait with her until it came; to call the cops. I know there are times when a man comes in most handy (and I'm very grateful for them) but I'd like it if women would do what they can to take care of each other just in case there's no trustworthy guy hanging around.
ReplyDeleteAnd, incidentally, I don't entirely buy the idea that the woman being harassed by the drunk guy is - or rationally should be - afraid of setting off an aggressor. Unless the bar is a serious dive, she should be able to safely say, "I don't want to talk to you. Go away and leave me alone or I'm calling over the bartender (or, in dire straits, calling the cops." That, after all, is why God gave us cellphones.
I think some incidents of this type, those that occur in safe, public places - not all but some - have more to do with women not wanting to cause a scene, not wanting to look like idiots, not wanting to over-react and feel like a fool, not wanting to look like they can't handle themselves in whatever situation they're in (as if telling the guy to get lost isn't, in fact, handling oneself), and so on. I have been in apparently safe situations where I would have been wary about speaking sharply to someone - oddly, one of the worst was in a Boston Market in mid-afternoon - but Ms. Hess gives us no indication the bar was a generally hostile environment. In fact, it seem to me that her general point is that even in safe places women are frightened of setting off aggressors. That doesn't ring quite true for me.
I know what you mean. I wonder what's odd about my experience that I've never had this problem of how to get a rude guy to back off. I suspect it's the flip side of my tending to emit a "back off" vibe even when I don't mean to; I have to put some work into seeming approachable, having learned over the years that people felt surprisingly rebuffed or wilted when I had no idea that was likely.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course, I'm talking about back when I was young and reasonably attractive. I definitely don't have to worry about repelling clueless flirts these days! But something of the same sort is involved in avoiding being imposed on by a bore at a party: you don't want to be too rude, but sometimes you could use some help in a rescue.
Anyway, it's clearly within the average woman's ability to show some social solidarity with another woman who's being pushed too hard, even if no men are around to help. And I honestly don't understand the level of threat that's sometimes experienced in a public place. In an alleyway, sure. I also understand the problem in the workplace, where there are undercurrents, alliances, and retaliations looming. But in a bar? I'm afraid too many women internalized the lesson that they have to be "nice" no matter what. That's a lesson they'll have to unlearn unless they want to depend on men to ride in and play Mr. Not Nice for them.
(Then of course someone comes along and writes a manifesto making it clear he needs to shoot the place up because someone rebuffed him at a party. But seriously, is that the threat that the beleaguered woman in the bar is feeling? The crazy-guy-with-a-social-axe-to-grind syndrome is fairly rare. Isn't it a bit like worrying about catching Ebola from a toilet seat?)
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a young lass, I got very uncomfortable when guys were overly persistent because I didn't want to be nasty or rude or crush their egos (but some were so bad that they wouldn't listen to anything short of flagrant nastiness).
ReplyDeleteIt had nothing to do with self confidence or fear, and everything to do with feeling bad for them. And I still do a lot of the time, even when I'm also feeling incredibly annoyed. I can't imagine how hard it is for guys to put themselves out there like that and risk rejection.
That's one of the best things about getting older - men are generally courtly to me but I'm not worried about them trying to pick me up :p
Now suppose you're physically weaker than half the guys in the prison. Aren't you going to exercise a lot of care in deciding what kind of protection you're willing to ask for, and figuring out what the quid pro quo will be?
ReplyDeleteTo go back to Grim's and Mike's suggestion, no one was suggesting that the woman at the bar should speak up and ask for help. The suggestion was that the woman at the table with her male friend who was watching this should have spoken to her friend about offering help instead of just...watching.
I don't entirely buy the idea that the woman being harassed by the drunk guy is....
I don't have a problem with the woman at the bar trying to weasel-word a defense instead of directly confronting her drunk harasser. Certainly in a respectable bar a negative outcome to that is unlikely, but it isn't a zero probability. Even if he only gets in one punch before other patrons intervene, he gets in that one punch. As to the woman not responding directly out of her insecurities, it certainly would be useful if she had some self defense skills--a lot of those insecurities go away with those skills, apart from their direct benefits--but the woman had to deal with situation as it was, not as it ought to have been.
Eric Hines
The Japanese explained it this way.
ReplyDeleteHierarchy must exist at all levels of society, not merely a recognition of political and legal authority in the Political Leader, but also from children to parents, older siblings to and from younger siblings, men to women and women to men.
There are attributes for everyone that sets them above other humans in the hierarchy, the totem pole, the pack. This should not be limited to business or jobs or politics. A younger sibling respects, obeys, and admires their older sibling in return for protection, guidance, and wisdom. Without obedience, they cannot be protected. The older sibling cannot acquire admiration if the older sibling is incompetent.
So the same applies to lovers and social groups. There is always a leader, but the followers must have people they lead and command as well. This perfects the human hierarchy so that people are not always at the top nor are they always at the bottom. As in the US military, they learn to obey orders so that they can learn to give orders, and both will be required as they gain experience in life.
You know, getting a guy to back off isn't that hard- the best back off line I ever heard uttered to one of the guys in my group of friends from high school was "Jesus loves you". Man, that shut things down in a hurry, and with a smile.
ReplyDeleteI'll be teaching my daughter that one.
Getting a basically nice to back off isn't all that hard.
ReplyDeleteThere - fixed it for ya. What it took to get people you liked/hung around with (especially if they weren't drinking at the time) < > what it takes to get a guy to back off.
Though I totally agree that letting a guy down with humor is a good tactic that works if the guy isn't a jerk. As a married woman, I've had guys send me drinks in a bar and then refuse to back off, I've had guys refuse to back off after pointing out that I was happily married and not looking for love in all the wrong places.
Unfortunately, there is a small subset of guys who really believe that if you're female and walking around - anywhere - that you want to be hit on. Even if you're not dressed provocatively, even if you're wearing a wedding ring, even if you're not making eye contact or flirting (or even talking to *any* men - at all).
And just as a lot of guys get upset by (or judge all women by) what a few feminists say or do, a few bad apples do affect how many young women interpret being hit on.
Ugh. That should have been "basically nice GUY".
ReplyDeleteOn a very slightly related note, I have a friend who escaped being raped once by persuading the guy who had broken into her apartment that she had AIDS. (In fact, she was a professional ballerina and reed-thin for that reason.) She's lucky he didn't simply kill her, though.
ReplyDeleteAnd back to reality: maybe you have to be as awkward in conversation as I naturally am to understand how easy it is to scare off even some borderline-psychos by boring them to death with a flood of detailed, technical talk. I had a boss I used to get rid of that way. Not that he was flirting with me, but he was pushing his sociopathic nonsense, and needed to be chased out of my office frequently without precipitating a open power struggle. "I've just located the most fascinating case!" And . . . he's gone.
And on a final, only tangentially related note, Douglas's comment reminds me of a poster I may have copied here a few months ago: A sweet little old lady is holding her pistol on someone off camera and saying, "The police should be here in a few minutes. In the meantime, let's talk about Jesus."