"As Equals"

Today the NYT ethicist asks the question, "What's the rule about looking at women in public?"

Glancing at someone in a public place is always permissible; there’s often a fleeting moment of mutual acknowledgment — perhaps a slight nod or smile — before both parties look away. This momentary connection is part of how we experience our shared social world. No doubt if you find the person attractive, your glance may well linger involuntarily for a moment. But prolonging that moment further can cross a line. We can’t control our initial notice of others; we can control our subsequent choices. I suspect your ‘‘quick’’ glance wasn’t so quick.

In public settings, it’s generally intrusive to display sexual interest. That it may sometimes be welcomed doesn’t change the situation. Yes, a brief friendly glance that produces a smile and a direct reciprocating look can mean you’re being invited to maintain eye contact. But if there’s any doubt, the unease caused by leering is bad enough that you should err on the side of averting your gaze. In your case, there normally should be doubt. Being aware of whatever shortcomings we may have in the skills of everyday life can guide us toward better practices. Just as people who know they have a poor sense of direction learn to check maps more often, someone who struggles to read social signals around looking would do well by being reserved and not risk making others uncomfortable. It’s a matter of taking the trouble to do what, for you, doesn’t come naturally, and adopting habits that respect everyone’s dignity.

When it comes to men looking at women, in particular, there’s a broader social context in which women often experience unwanted attention or feel unsafe. The sexual etiquette I’ve described allows men and women to enjoy public spaces as equals. 

Something weird is going on with these definitions of  'equality.' The other day we were talking about an assumption that women would need rights men don't have in order to have equality. Here we've got a rule that applies to men only -- though especially to men who 'have trouble reading social signals,' meaning unequally even among men -- which somehow make men and women 'equals' in public spaces.

In Iraq we were given similar advice: not to look at or acknowledge the presence of women at all. That was only a stronger version of this advice -- to err on the side of caution by looking away -- but it certainly wasn't effective at creating a more equal society. I gather that the ethicist thinks this is going to work better because the intent is now to avoid offending the women, as opposed to avoid creating an offense to which their male 'guardians' would be obligated to respond. It's nevertheless strange that 'the rule' in New York City, of all places, should so closely resemble the rules in Baghdad or Kuwait City.