Soz - My comments weren't directed at you or anyone else specifically. Hyperbole and generalizations abound in society and I had just picked up on the prior use of the word here. My apologies if you took it to be directed at yerself!
Something that I use a lot in my dealings with "special interest groups" is the "benefit of the doubt" judgment criteria.
There are groups that over centuries have suffered much personal "damage" at the hands of a specific, readily defineable, but not inclusive, perpetration group.
The two, perhaps most obvious, but absolutely not alone in their suffering are the dark skined poeple of this planet, and the females of our species.
So, until the abuse that these people are exposed to on a daily basis completely dissapears, not in my lifetime, I am sure, in any dealings where greater, equivalent, or lesser "fault" is to be considered, I will afford them "the benefit of the doubt".
THEY HAVE EARNED IT!
I will probably not have time to respond fully to you, Craven - it being way after 11 pm - but I will do a bit.
Before that, Sozobe, I think your point about a lone black kid on a bus being nervous, is a good one. (Or a lone white kid on a bus full of black people!)
Recently, Australia had a horrible upsurge of racism against Asian people (for reasons too complex to bother with now) - a lot of Asian people felt quite threatened, at places like bus stops etc especially, whenever a non-Asian person approached (although the actual incidence of assaults was quite low.) As a response to this, a lot of us took to wearing little, orange, I think, coloured ribbons, which were a signal that the wearer was taking a stand against the disgusting behaviour of the few - the feedback from this from the Asian community was very positive, in terms of feeling supported and safer. A similar thing happened during the whole September 11/Gulf War II kerfuffle. A lot of Moslem women, readily identifiable by their headwear, felt very threatened, because a few non-Moslems took to attacking, insulting them etc. There were several "headscarf" days - when non-Moslem women wore headgear similar to that worn by Moslem women as an act of support.
I also recall several times when one of my partners and I (we kept bizarre hours, and were often driving between his house and mine in the small wee hours) passed obviously traumatised and distressed women, walking alone and looking exposed and at risk - (two had, in fact been raped and dumped by the side of the road by their multiple rapists, and two had been thrown out of cars by dates when they wouldn't "come across"). My partner, exquisitely aware of how threatening his presence could seem, would stop the car some distance from the woman, let me out, and drive further away while I spoke to her, found out what was going on and gained her trust, he would then approach on foot, and we would determine if she felt able to trust us, or if she wanted him to leave us both there while he rang police/friends/whoever or whatever was appropriate. (Pre-mobile phone days) His obvious respect for the woman's feelings of fear and her boundaries meant, in fact, that on all four occasions, the woman was happy to trust us, and allow us to drive her home/to hospital/to police, whichever was appropriate. He usually got big, hugs, too.
I can also recall lots of occasions when I was being harassed by groups of young louts, that other men, who were just passing, would quietly come up and stand or walk by me - not saying anything, not doing anything, just quietly stating support and disapproval of the behaviour. These things mean a lot.
I guess I am raising these things because (feeling bruised by this debate as I am) they are indications that simple demonstrations of quiet support towards people who feel threatened by a minority of people in a group, by the majority of that group, are very effective - and that even recently and horribly traumatised women do NOT see all men as predators. (And nor do I, as it happens.) However, whille it seems, Craven, that you do not deny that some men ARE predators, it ALMOST seems that any mention of that fact, and its inevitable effect on how almost all women react to the world, even though most men are NOT - is seen by you as an attack on all of you.
Most dogs are not vicious. However, the fact that some are, means that I discourage children from approaching strange dogs on the street. The behaviour of a few dogs means that caution makes sense. Most "strangers" are benign. However, my mother's warnings about strangers meant that I ran away the day the kind lady (who turned out to be a friend of my mother's whom I did not recognize because I had been trained not to LOOK at strangers in cars who approached me!) offered me a ride home from school when I was 6 and struggling home in torrential rain with my school case. Am I extreme and inordinately hostile and tarring all dogs with a dark brush? Was my mother doing this to all of humanity by talking to me about not taking lifts?
BoGoWo - I think you have encapsulated in a very few words what I was trying to get across, in many. That is EXACTLY what I feel as a white person in relation to the often quite considerable crap I get from Aboriginal people at meetings (I get to go to meetings with Aboriginal groups as a rep for my agency, and I, and other whites, often feel like we need horse tranquilizer and a suit of armour for the first hour or so, until we have listened calmly and respectfully enough for the angrier people to be able to settle and hear us and talk turkey with them! They have 215 years worth of fury, and I feel they are entitled.)
Craven, you said; "I wonder if the comparative rarity is what makes men mind it less, or if it's just the assosiation with danger that you mention. "
Actually, I don't think, when it comes down to it, that ANYONE likes being ogled, or leered at, or grabbed etc. (I think that, for women being ogled at by men, there exists a latent anxiety and watchful ness re possible physical threat, which would not generally be there if the positions were reversed.) I think, and I talk about this lots with the men I know, that when men sometimes say things like they wish it happened to them, that they are, in fact, really meaning appreciative stares, whistles etc. The men I know to whom it HAS happened - these include men who have worked in gay bars, or nightclubs or strip joints (as "bottomless" waiters!) - (I knew LOTS of actors working hard to fund their "habit", as they called it - and, just as lots of women work in those places cos they pay well, so do men needing that buck for not many hours work) - and all of them have found themselves quickly disgusted and infuriated by leering, grabby men AND women - ("ladies" night at strip clubs apparently bringing out very gross behaviour indeed in some women - and I note the power structure of men vs women for men working in that role is a very clear reversal of the "traditional" one - which illustrates a point I have tried to make to you again and again, Craven, that I see certain power structures as bringing out the beast in some PEOPLE - not that I see men as intrinsically more evil, or "ape-like" than women. I probably see the average man as more aggressive than the average woman - though that seems to be gradually changing - with violent crimes by women clearly up. Sigh.)
Craven said: "for many men there is an implicit threat inherent in the experience of being watched by men on buses - that of having a watcher - or more than one, alight from the bus when you do, follow you, and assault or rob you. In fact, this does not happen often."
I agree with you - I think fear of assault IS very real for men - however, are you painting men as predators here? Are you " making the criminal behaviour of the monority become(s) to some degree a stereotype for the majority."? Or are you making a perfectly true statement, based on your knowledge and experience of the world? Is your statement blaming and contemptuous of all men, tarring all of them with the blackest possible brush?
Craven said: "It's not only sexual crimes that generate the silly "asked for it" response. They are just uglier when we are talking about these crimes."
Yes, I agree with you, it is, in fact, exactly what I SAID.
Deb said: "the exaggerated (for it is a universal response to trauma) "what did she/I do to deserve it/make it happen?" factor. "
I have realised it is after 1.00 am - and I need to work.
I will come back at some later point and finish this response.
Deb, it's not ANY mention of male predatory behavior that bothers me. In your last post you said it was a minority, a relief because you have given me the impression (and this is something I raised countless times) that you considered the behavior to be much more prevalent.
e.g.
Me: "But those are a criminal minority"
You "They are more common than you think... < huge list of anecdotal evidence >"
Like I said, the impression you give is 8/10.
I really don't intend to talk with you about this anymore. But please do try to quantify this. What comes across in conversations about this with you is not in any way comparable to general avoidance of strangers and dogs and such. What comes across is something far more passionate and negative than how you speak of dongs and strangers.
All I'm really interested in is how many of the males you think are predators right now. It's an easy way of determining whether this is a waste of time or not.
Well, I have determined that it IS a total waste of time, so let's stop the whole thing right here.
The simple answer to your question is that I have no ******* idea. I do not know at what point you consider sexual predation to begin.
Using my definition - which I suppose would be at the grabbing level - I would make a wild stab - of somewhere between one in fifty and one in twenty. Possibly closer to the fity end.
It is hard for me to guess - because the sort of work I did etc exposed me to lots of it from strangers when I was young - but it has only twice occurred, in any way, shape or form, with any man I have actually known.
The end.
Much better than the 8/10 and even better than the 3/10 that I guessed you would answer. Again, a relief. Not in my most optimistic moment would I have thought you'd go under 3/10.
Goes to show, doesn't it?
That is my last comment on gender on this forum.
Ever.
Would you actually like to discuss this?
If so, I would I would see it as a private rather than a public discussion.
(Sorry folks, it has not been especially elevating of me to display emotion about this topic here.)
What? Yes, I'll discuss it. Lemme turn on trillian.
Re: Both experience and harassment.
I have a fairly affluent friend who retired to Florida and bought herself a condo with all sorts of recreational facilities including a swimming pool.
Early in the spring teenaged boys started being thoroughly obnoxious making loud comments about the girls, both pretty and plain.
My friend and the silver-haired biddies of her bridge group mixed a pitcher of martinis and settled down at a poolside table.
Every one of the teenaged boys became the subject of loud discussion. How was he hung? Could he perform in bed? Would he ever get rid of those pimples? Why would he wear a baggy bathing suit making himself look even chubbier than he was?
In less than an hour the teenaged boys fled--and the era of the loud personal comments was over.
Jesus, people - I need to apologise for my tantrum, and explain.
The reason I said I would not be discussing gender again is because, as may have become evident, despite my attempts to be dispassionate, it is a subject dear to my heart - made more so by the traumas I deal with every day, where,of course, I get a skewed view of the world.
Now, I know it is skewed, but the emotion is still there - and when I am arguing about this stuff, while I see the point of people like Fishin' and Craven and accept their views too, sometimes the trauma stuff I deal with (child abuse and rape and violence and such) sort of wells up a lot - in fact, generally it does - but I normally keep a better lid on it (normally only poor Craven of the A2kers would really see that!) - to the point where I actually find it physically painful to argue this stuff, because of the tension I am containing. This time the tension got on top of me, prolly because I have spent such a lot of time thinking about the topic, because I have been replying to people here.
This time, this resulted in a tantrum aimed at Craven - who didn't deserve it - and I generally try not to have tantrums - especially in public, and especially aimed at people whom I value especially highly.
That is the reason I decided to keep out of gender discussions here - at least for a while.
Normally I would not have announced it in such a dramatic and childish way, however - I did.
Apologies to Craven, for yelling at him, and apologies to all of you for having to witness a bad dummy spit. If I am gonna dummy spit, I should maybe stay out of that playpen fo a bit! And I will.
Er, if anyone finds my dummy, I sort of need it...
One reason I didn't want you to apologize is because then it's my turn.
Now I have to say I'm sorry for being oversensitive about gender issues too. Something I realzed before posting here and I turned what was supposed to be an admission of that into a backfiring rant.
Thing is, what I get angry about is something I think I did. There is a point at which I think a valid qualm becomes a ranting bashfest and I think my qualm grew into just that. Oddly enough my qualm was ABOUT that.
Anywho, back to being perfect. A pox on Deb for making me issue another mea culpa here. It's a thread record.
dlowan, we are ENTITLED to segregate some dangerous minorities, but only for the right reasons(actually I'm open minded most of the time, however there's a minority I can't stand, & I feel the entire right to do so), some minorites are actually pretty dumb, antipatriotic, among others things.
The emphasis that this society puts on sex is part of the causes of the sex crimes, it could also be a cause the need for attention, & since they can't get it in a right way, they do it in a wrong.
Thankfully Craven said MOST MEN HAVE DONE STUPID THINGS TO GET A GIRL'S ATTENTION, cause personally I haven't, , & the girls that are my friends are because I think they have more potential of being smarter than guys, actually I'm sort of a feminist(odd), the few guys tht consider me their friend, I don't consider them back as friends, it's hard to have a conversation when all the guys want to talk about is sex, cars, & sports(the only sport I actually love is tennis), & I like to talk about deep subjects, & with girls is more possible to do so. Btw, this opinion is only about young people, with mature people I don't have real preference, except that they are open minded.
Btw, the punishments for most crimes should be the death penalty, or a total segregation from society(like an island), few criminals actually change.
I think this whole can of worms that I unknowingly opened with a randomly selected example of a thought experiment has been really interesting. Dlowan, I wish you would stop being so apologetic for reasonable pique, though. Craven apologized, too, so it all comes out in the wash (is that how it goes? I've been hanging out with deaf people all day and my English idioms suffer), but you are far less unreasonable (IMO) than you seem to think.
A ways back I thought about starting a new thread more specifically on this topic to get the input of people who might not be following this discussion, but I do not wish to pour salt on a wound, so I will ask first if people would prefer that this subject died a quiet dignified death.
The new thread I have in mind involves a photo that started the version of this discussion I had with E.G., very early on. (Maybe 3 weeks into dating.)
LOL - some cans will always itch to be opened! And it IS interesting, and probably crucial that it be aired.
As for my wounds, they will be minding their own business, at least until I am really well again - so they say salt away, we are having a holiday!
As we are given to understand; if we use "sea" salt it will be a "purer" hurt!
