Reprint: “No right to be assumed harmless” — more on men and suspicion

89 thoughts on “Reprint: “No right to be assumed harmless” — more on men and suspicion”

1. “When I hear my brothers complaining that women don’t smile enough at them, or don’t respond to their “innocent hellos”, I am reminded of my white friends who are bewildered and indignant when people of color point out their white privilege to them. ”

   That line reminds me of something from Gavin de Becker’s (excellent, if terrifying) book “The Gift of Fear”. He says that the correct (and only safe) response of women to men who approach them and speak to them unsolicited (especially in locations like parking garages) is suspicion and mistrust — because men who truly want those women to feel comfortable and safe will not approach them and speak to them.

2. de Becker also points out that our society expects women to be warm and approachable to men at all times (lest they risk the B-word), and it’s exactly this openness that allows predators to operate.

   Basically, the choice is whether to be accused of being a paranoid bitch vs. whether to risk making oneself more vulnerable to predators.

3. He says that the correct (and only safe) response of women to men who approach them and speak to them unsolicited (especially in locations like parking garages) is suspicion and mistrust — because men who truly want those women to feel comfortable and safe will not approach them and speak to them.

   Where I live people talk to each other. Strangers can still ask other strangers for directions. Some people even say “hello!” with a smile. I consider this normal behaviour. I consider a man talking to a woman he may not know normal, and vice versa. If a man approaches me (and I’m a man), although I’m statistically more likely to be mugged or beaten than if I were a woman, I do not assume the stranger means me harm.

   I live in the UK.

   Has the US gotten so bad that strangers keep their distance to make each other feel safe?

4. It’s not safe to make massive generalizations to cover all of the U.S., but for those of us who are living in big cities, yes. I live in Chicago and we had a conversation at my work one time about the “public transportation” face and how one person here who isn’t able to assume it easily has been repeatedly accosted by scary strangers- it’s more than a male/female thing, but it’s definitely worse for women.

5. In response to Vacula, I’ve personally gotten a lot of use out of deciding that if there’s going to one crazy person on the Greyhound bus late at night, then by God it’s going to be me! I mutter to myself, occassionally injecting loud swear words, and believe me, even the scary-looking people stay away from me. The standard “public transportation face” works great for commutes, but for long hauls on public transport I highly recommend the crazy person gambit.

6. Where I live people talk to each other. Strangers can still ask other strangers for directions. Some people even say “hello!” with a smile. I consider this normal behaviour. I consider a man talking to a woman he may not know normal, and vice versa. If a man approaches me (and I’m a man), although I’m statistically more likely to be mugged or beaten than if I were a woman, I do not assume the stranger means me harm. – DaveTheRave

   While I don’t agree with things you’ve mentioned in other threads, this one is on the mark. Men have a far greater chance of being mugged, murdered or having any crime aside from rape committed against them, even though we’re far harder marks to attack. And yet, throughout most of my life (urban guy here) the distancing has only happened sometimes when there’s a white guy alone on the street at night. And this was when I was in a swanky suit going home.

   Hugo, you’re throwing in “demand”, “ought to know” and “right” into this. I didn’t say nor imply that men have the right to assumed to be harmless, nor that women ought to know who’s naughty or nice. This comes down to whether you have a basic respect for other human beings, regardless of being the oppressed or the oppressor.

   Men who complain about being “guilty until proven innocent” are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived sex and the history that goes with it. – Hugo

   Now switch the sex with race, and we have the exact same problem. I’m an individual, not a gear in the monolithic group called “men” also called unevolved, brutes, and so on. And to top this off, I’m black so now I’ve got a double instance of ignorance working against me simply because I’m walking down the street. I’m not responsible for my friends’ sexism, nor my parents, and so on. These are adults and it is on their shoulders whether they want to live like that. Me? I’m a propnent of leading by example. While I’m divorced, I still maintain a healthy relationship with the mother of my twin sons. Basically, I live my life for them to take that example and follow it, one of being as non-sexist as you can in this society as a male. In other words, how to be a respectful, compassionate and strong human being.

   So my disapproval of this “guilty until proven innocent” is largely based on my worries of what my sons will face because of this and the unjust guilt shoveled onto them. Because of their skin color they’ll already be targets of racism as well as the paranoia that I described earlier on the part of the white male. Not only that, but now they’ll have to feel guilty for the actions of OTHER men against women as well get that same distancing from women for two fold reasons.

   You even being raised by a pro-feminist won’t be enough to counter the creepy sentiment they’ll experience when these things happen, that it’s not right when they’re far more likely to become victims than not.

7. I disagree with the following both in the prior post (and this one):

   In our deeply sexist culture, men are “guilty until proven innocent.” That’s our own damned fault . . .

   I agree that men have no right to be presumed harmless. But framing it in terms of collective fault is wrong. Yes, plenty of men have abused women but you as an individual are not at fault unless you yourself have abused a woman, nor are men collectively at fault. You still have an obligation as a civilized person to accept and be sensitive to women’s presumption that you may be harmful, but that is quite a different thing than embracing a sense of fault one does not personally deserve.

   Also, even as a woman, I don’t demand that people will presume me harmless. For example, unlike many lawyers, I don’t have any objection to going through a metal detector when I enter a courthouse and I don’t see any reason why I should be exempt because of my profession. These things are the price we pay for being part of a species whose members at times do violence to each other.

8. I think that the question is not if women will say hello with a smile, or answer requests for directions. I will do that at any time. Its the expectation that the women sitting next to you will talk to you, and share personal info like where she lives or a telephone number. That I don’t feel safe doing. As for idle chit chat sometimes I will, sometimes I just don’t feel like talking, and shouldn’t have to.

9. Dave the Rave, in my town here in the U.S., it is no big deal if a man approaches a woman to ask for directions or find out what time it is. It might be a different matter if it were after dark on a quiet street. It is certainly a different matter if the man persists in trying to converse with or approach a woman who is indicating that she does not want to engage. A person does not have the right to complain if a stranger doesn’t want to interact with him or her.

   However, even in daylight, you can never be too careful and it is up to each individual I once had a guy approach me at a crowded daytime crosswalk in Boston. I couldn’t quite understand him and thinking he was asking me the time, I leaned forward. He then reached into my overcoat and tried to grab my breast, forcing me to shove him aside. So a woman never knows. Her wishes as to whether a conversation is welcome must be respected.

10. Hmm, let’s try an exercise – switch one thing in Hugo’s post and viola:

    – begin –

    In my “letter to a young pro-racist” post of yesterday, I wrote:

    Don’t be hurt or frustrated if you encounter people who are initially suspicious of your professed egalitarianism. In our deeply racist culture, blacks are “guilty until proven innocent.” That’s their own damned fault, frankly, and the sooner they cheerfully accept the burden of proving themselves innocent, the better off we’re all going to be.

    Rex commented:

    I really can’t agree with you on “guilty until proven innocent”. Blacks are not born racists, homophobes, rapists, or what have you.

    Sorry, but I’ve read far too many articles and reports about countries and cities in those countries where “guilty until proven innocent” is the default operating standard and it’s nothing short of hell.

    And Jeremy replied, nicely:

    Yes, the principle “innocent until proven guilty” is vital to a free society, but it only applies if you are in court being charged with a crime… you do *not* have the right to be assumed harmless. If I’m walking home late at night and a white person takes the trouble to keep their distance from me, well, it really sucks that they’re acting as though I’m a potential threat but guess what, I just have to deal with it. I *don’t* have the right to demand that a passing stranger treats me the way I would prefer them to.

    The bold emphasis is mine, not Jeremy’s. It’s an important point he makes, and a good one.

    I wrote nearly two years ago about the frustration of the “good guy” who is judged by the actions of others. I wrote:

    First of all, the obvious point is that white people’s intuition, while not entirely the stuff of myth, is not so powerful that it can automatically separate “good blacks” from the bad. No white person can walk down the street and as they pass a black, know with certainty that they aren’t a threat. Given the high incidence of rape and assault and harassment and other forms of mistreatment perpetrated by blacks, a white person would be a fool to leave themselves continually vulnerable. The old adage “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” seems to apply here. When a simple smile is so frequently misunderstood and construed as a prelude to assault, American white persons generally do have to operate on the assumption that blacks are guilty until proven innocent.

    I stand by that today.

    When I hear my Black Brothers complaining that white women don’t smile enough at them, or don’t respond to their “innocent hellos”, I am reminded of my black friends who are bewildered and indignant when white people point out the privilege to them accorded by politically correct institutional bigotry such as affirmative action, hypersensitivity and deference to minority perspectives, etc. Blacks who complain about being “guilty until proven innocent” are demanding to be seen as individuals, separate from their perceived race and the history that goes with it.

    While “innocent until proven guilty” is an excellent guideline for courtroom proceedings, it doesn’t translate nearly as effectively into public life and relations between the races. When blacks complain that whites are suspicious of their intentions merely because they are black, they are forcing whites into the role of the district attorney, the one shouldered with the burden of proving guilt. In a society where whites, rather than blacks, are overwhelmingly the victims of harassment and assault, those who have suffered most are the ones being asked to lay aside their prior experience and knowledge and approach each new black person in their lives with a blank slate, free from judgment. That’s a hell of a weight to ask white to carry, and a hell of a risk to ask them to take, again and again and again.

    In our culture, where rape and harassment and abuse are so common, blacks have lost the right (if it ever existed) to insist that whites should be able to differentiate (in a matter of seconds) between the harmless and the threatening. A black is entitled to a presumption of innocence from a jury in a courtroom, but not from their classmate with whom they try to strike up what they ought to know is just an innocent conversation!

    Is it frustrating to be viewed with suspicion merely because of one’s race? Heck yes. (Is it frustrating to be viewed as a racial object merely because one is young and white? Ask around.) Blacks ought to be angry that they need to “prove their harmlessness”. Indeed, they ought to be enraged! But our anger is rightly directed not at whites who have been the victims (individually and collectively) of predatory blacks, but at those blacks who have “poisoned the well” for everyone else. Rather than demand that whites “smile more” or “trust more” or “just know that I’m a good guy”, blacks need to channel their frustration at being “pre-judged” into a commitment to end what it is that causes white’s suspicion in the first place.

    Holding other blacks accountable, challenging racist and objectifying language and behavior in yourself and in other blacks (whether or not whites are around) is the single most effective thing blacks can do to change the culture of “guilty until proven innocent.” Rape, assault, and harassment are allowed to flourish not merely through the actions of a few “bad apples”, but through the unwillingness of the “nice blacks” to challenge other blacks. Silence is, in practical terms, tacit consent and approval.

    There’s more to being a “good black” than not assaulting whites. Good blacks hold themselves and other blacks accountable, in public and in private. That’s a high standard to meet, particularly for the young. But it’s only by meeting that standard that blacks can help to change the culture.

    – end –

    Ewww – doesn’t sound so good any more, eh?

    Pre-judging people based on their group identity rather than who they are as a person is called “prejudice.” Not very ‘progressive’ if you ask me.

11. Race and gender are not always as analagous as we would like to believe, justaguy. It’s time to bring back my old comment rule: comments over 250 words will be banned (in the future). Posting three comments in a row to chop a long screed up into 250 word segments will result in all being deleted.

    Happy, I am not arguing for collective guilt. There is a big difference between saying it’s “our fault” (meaning that men, as a group, have done terrible things to women) and saying it’s YOUR fault (meaning you as an individual did those terrible things.)

    As any reader of my blog knows, I am a great believer that men need to “police” other men’s behavior. As to what women do to hold other women accountable, that’s not my purview.

12. But, Hugo, then what’s the point of using the term “fault” at all? Doesn’t that imply culpability and blame? What does it even mean to be collectively at fault for something? Isn’t justaguy right when he says it is not progressive to believe in collective guilt? It foists culpability on a person based only on the accident of his birth with XY chromosomes.

    There is a huge distinction between the notion of fault and the notion of having responsibility going forward. I agree that men should hold each other accountable when they have the opportunity to do so, but that’s not the same thing as collective fault.

13. By the time a young man hits the age old enough to be affected by what we’re talking about here, he has — through either commission or omission — contributed to the problem in some very real ways. It would be a rare young man indeed who hasn’t participated, often without realizing it, in the patriarchy and who hasn’t benefitted from unmerited male privilege. Culpability doesn’t just accrue to those who are conscious of their faults.

14. It would be a rare young man indeed who hasn’t participated, often without realizing it, in the patriarchy . . .

    This is a good point. And that young man shoul feel a sense of accountability for his particular deeds. But doesn’t the reference to collective fault in this post relate to those deeds by men which cause women to feel afraid on the street? I have no reason to believe that mose young men have committed acts or threats of violence upon women.

    . . . and who hasn’t benefitted from unmerited male privilege . . .

    But there is no guilt in benefitting from unearned privilege. Aside from being female, I’m about as privileged as you can get. I never asked the whole world to smile upon me for being white and straight and able-bodied and educated. That’s not my fault but I do have a responsibility to make myself aware of the ways in which other people do not walk in my shoes, to make sure that my privilege does not unjustly benefit me at someone else’s expense, and to do my part to try to make things more fair.

    The idea of collective guilt also makes me verrrrry nervous because I think about people persecuting the Jews because they “killed Christ” or dumping on women because of the sins of Eve. It also seems counter-productive and unnecessarily alienates people from the idea of feminism.

15. Happy, would it make you more comfortable if I said “young men have a responsibility — as men — to do their part to make sure that they don’t misuse their unearned privilege, something that they almost certainly have already done, even unwittingly”? Because frankly, that works for me too. We can avoid the word “fault” if you prefer, because we are really talking about stepping up and taking responsibility.

16. Jeremy:

    Switch “Black” with “white” and you MAY have a point. Otherwise you’re just being obtuse.

17. Antigone, I think you mean “justaguy”, not Jeremy.

18. Why would that be, Antigone? While’s I have had the occasional white guy act like an asshat Klansman wannabe sometimes about the whole Indian thing, every time I have actually been the victim of a violent crime it has been at the hands of someone who is black – or a gang of them.

19. Yeah, I think that’s perfect, Hugo!

20. Since I have experienced the opposite–women snapping at me for not returning their unsolicited smiles, nods, winks and the ever common touching my person–I cannot say I disagree with the notion that a person is not entitled to be trusted. However, it becomes an issue when a person is never given an opportunity to show that they are trustworthy. It gets worse when the automatic assumption is that said group is undeserving of trust altogether, which is what has been described. All that does is create further mistrust.

    That said, it seems odd to demand that random men take responsibility for other men’s actions while random women (who also benefit from female privilege) are not called to bear the responsibility of the harm caused by violent, abusive women. Again, I am just speaking from my personal experience. Happy Feminist snapped on me for distrusting feminists and yet justifies the same distrust when it is directed at me and other males .

21. Happy Feminist snapped on me for distrusting feminists and yet justifies the same distrust when it is directed at me and other males.

    You seem to be living in an alternate reality, Toy Soldier. I don’t think I have ever been anything but polite to you — although I have disagreed with your blanket statements about feminists.

    I think what I have justified in my comments is the idea of healthy distrust among strangers, regardless of gender. There are good reasons for women to be cautious of men in particular, not the least of which is the likely differential in physical strength. But even though I am a woman, I don’t demand to be trusted by people who don’t know me.

    It’s not that women should be cautious of men because men are inherently “undeserving” of trust. It’s just that it is (sadly) sometimes difficult to know who can be trusted and who cannot.

22. HappyFeminist, it’s nice that I agree with you here! It’s not only wrong to place a collective fault onto men, but it’s actually easier to absolve oneself of personal responsibility by simply hiding behind a collective responsibility (you see, it works both ways). I am no more to blame for other men’s wrongdoings (as a man) as I would deserve praise for other men’s achievements. I am me, and I take personal responsibility for my actions.

    I find it tiring that we must always divide down the gender line with these topics anyway. Women aren’t morally ‘superior’ to men, so the gender divide on this topic isn’t necessary. We are all capable of evil and doing good.

23. Right on, brother!

24. HF, the term “snapped” can also describe the type of reaction, not just the intensity. You were not tolerant of my similar distrust when the situation was reversed and you made that quite known.

    May I try something? It’s not that whites should be cautious of blacks because blacks are inherently “undeserving” of trust. It’s just that it is (sadly) sometimes difficult to know who can be trusted and who cannot. Would you consider that statement racist? I think you see what I am getting at. You say you dislike collective guilt, yet you place it on an entire group of people. Would that not be a blanket statement about the character of males?

25. I do not place collective guilt on any group of people. I do condone the notion of collective distrust on a group of people — that group of people being the entire human race. As I have said repeatedly, I don’t think women have the right to demand trust from strangers any more than men do. The main difference I see is that, due to the differential in physical strength between the sexes, men are more likely to have the ability to inflict violence on another adult and are probably more likely to try. But I wouldn’t advise letting picking up a woman hitchhiker you don’t know anymore than I would advise picking up a strange man.

    A woman’s (or a man’s) right to be wary of you — if you are a stranger — is not something to be taken personally. It is not a judgment on you. It is simply being careful and we should all respect the right of our fellow human beings to act cautiously and to feel safe.

26. It’s just that it is (sadly) sometimes difficult to know who can be trusted and who cannot.

    And if you make the wrong choice, you’re either a bitch or deserved whatever you got. Sometimes both.

27. A woman’s (or a man’s) right to be wary of you — if you are a stranger — is not something to be taken personally. It is not a judgment on you. It is simply being careful and we should all respect the right of our fellow human beings to act cautiously and to feel safe. – Happy

    This I have no problem with, nor with the idea that distrust on the entirety of the human race. It’s when this idea starts getting even more specific and focused that it turns ugly, real fast. I also agree with your statement of respect, essentially the same statement of respect for other human beings.

    Myth, thost responses are symptomatic of a society afflicted with the ills I mentioned in the other thread (sexism, racism, etc). This, rightly so, needs to be changed because it’s a lose/lose reaction to a situation where it’s nearly impossible to be 100% right. Happy’s stance is worthy of praise given how many women are given the bitch/deserving and yet she doesn’t go with a “guilty until innocent” approach.

28. Happy’s stance is worthy of praise given how many women are given the bitch/deserving and yet she doesn’t go with a “guilty until innocent” approach.

    I don’t see it as ‘guilty until innocent’ so much as a balancing of risks. The harm that comes to me from some random guy being offended I didn’t smile back is much less than the harm that comes to me if I smile at an asshole. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to just keep walking. It’s not a personal judgment on a stranger–who, after all, I know nothing about.

29. I don’t see it as ‘guilty until innocent’ so much as a balancing of risks. The harm that comes to me from some random guy being offended I didn’t smile back is much less than the harm that comes to me if I smile at an asshole. Therefore, the smart thing to do is to just keep walking. It’s not a personal judgment on a stranger–who, after all, I know nothing about. – mythago

    As long as this is evenly applied across all strangers, there’s no problem. Strangers are an unknown quantity, as as Happy said, there should be some basic respect for your fellow human beings’ desire for safety. This is regardless of sex, race, class, sexuality, or any other hateful aspect denies the other person this respect the balancing act fails.

    The fact that quite a few men fail this balancing act, by allowing their sexism to toss aside the woman’s right to safety, and attack or harass her is proof of what’s been said time and time again: Misogynists fail to recognize women as human beings, with all the rights that come with said status.

30. I’m not sure why you think it is ‘hateful’ to recognize that the risk to me from a random female stranger is not the same as the risk from a random male stranger.

31. Simple, you weren’t born in a vaccum. You were exposed to the same sexist society as the stranger on the street, albeit in a different form. Your risk assessment isn’t coming from an unbiased source, ie: you, and that will affect your actions and thoughts both conciously or otherwise.

    While you may have a point, changing the characters in that situation after focusing from “human race” to “group A and group B” quickly becomes and excercise in collective guilt and discrimination.

32. Antigone >> Jeremy: Switch “Black” with “white” and you MAY have a point. Otherwise you’re just being obtuse.

    Hugo > Antigone, I think you mean “justaguy”, not Jeremy.

    Hugo, thanks for catching that.

    Jeremy

33. The main difference I see is that, due to the differential in physical strength between the sexes, men are more likely to have the ability to inflict violence on another adult and are probably more likely to try.

    HF, I agree with all you’re saying in this thread – just this one I cannot. Men are statistically far more likely to be beaten and/or robbed by a stranger than a woman is. Rape is far less likely to occur than a beating or a mugging (robbery), which happens so often it’s not even remotely newsworthy, unless someone dies or is seriously wounded. Having said that, as a man (i.e. primary target for a beating or a mugging), I don’t automatically distrust other men (or women). As other posters have said, it DOES depend on the situation. In fact, I’m wary of girl gangs, because they are well known in England to ‘steam’ (rush robbery, in numbers) individuals and rob them. Same with guys acting erratically or supiciously. We all have our radars checking for trouble – I just don’t think it’s useful or helpful to make our radar more crude so that we automatically filter out all women as harmless, and ALL men as potentially harmful. Same goes with skin colour (see how racist that can become). I react to the situation at the time.

34. Having said that, as a man (i.e. primary target for a beating or a mugging), I don’t automatically distrust other men (or women). As other posters have said, it DOES depend on the situation.

    Of course, of course! But the key point is that it’s YOUR call how to respond to a stranger on the street. The stranger does not have a right to your attention or engagement.

    Men are statistically far more likely to be beaten and/or robbed by a stranger than a woman is.

    At the risk of getting a little off-topic, I have to say this point can’t be stressed enough. I think it’s foolhardy to encourage the sense of invincibility men often have, the sense that they don’t have to worry about crime just because they are male. On the flip side, it’s ridiculous that women are subject to constant hysterical handwringing over our safety in public when we are statistically less likely to be victimized in that context. Ultimately, it is the individual’s right (male or female) to make an informed cost-benefit analysis of where, when, and with whom to go out and about in the world.

35. That’s not to say that there are no gender issues here. Men may be more likely to be assaulted in public than women — but the assailants in both instances are far, far more likely to be male. Also, women in general are under more external and internal pressure to be accommodating to others at the risk of being considered a bitch.

36. Of course, of course! But the key point is that it’s YOUR call how to respond to a stranger on the street. The stranger does not have a right to your attention or engagement.

    I agree with that – this comes down to personal responsibility.

    At the risk of getting a little off-topic, I have to say this point can’t be stressed enough. I think it’s foolhardy to encourage the sense of invincibility men often have, the sense that they don’t have to worry about crime just because they are male. On the flip side, it’s ridiculous that women are subject to constant hysterical handwringing over our safety in public when we are statistically less likely to be victimized in that context. Ultimately, it is the individual’s right (male or female) to make an informed cost-benefit analysis of where, when, and with whom to go out and about in the world.

    Very much agree. Men are dangerous to men – a fact that receives little attention. There is a very very false sense of security with men that they are somehow immune to attack because all the warning messages are sent out to women. Yes, it is men who commit the majority of violent crime against strangers. Having said that, let’s not forget this constitutes a very tiny minority of the male population.

37. Sorry Jeremy. Hugo’s right, I meant justaguy.

    Oh yeah Gonz! Let’s go with anedotes then. Every single act of violence against me has been a white guy. Every single one.

    But the larger point is, blacks are the ones that have been historically oppressed, like women have been oppressed by men. So, for what justaguy says to be true, he has to re-write the history of race relations.

38. I do condone the notion of collective distrust on a group of people — that group of people being the entire human race.

    You specifically stated that women should be more wary of males because of males’ greater physical strength, not the entire human race. No person is entitled to automatic trust, but to consider one group less deserving of it than another is blatant discrimination. To say that group then bears responsibility for the actions of others does indeed place collective guilt on them.

    But the key point is that it’s YOUR call how to respond to a stranger on the street.

    Then you would agree that it is reasonable for me to distrust women when I am with my six-year-old godson since women are more likely to assault and murder children? And it is reasonable to distrust feminists because of their support of violence inflicted by other feminists on males? In other words, it is reasonable to distrust you because of your gender and ideology?

39. No person is entitled to automatic trust, but to consider one group less deserving of it than another is blatant discrimination.

    The problem is that you are hung up on “deserving.” Automatic trust isn’t about what you “deserve.” It is more about practicalities. And heck it doesn’t even break down necessarily on gender lines. I am more likely to feel okay running into a petite elderly woman on a dark street than a strapping 6 foot tall male youth– not because she is more deserving of trust but because I think I am more likely to be able to defend myself against her. On the other hand, I might also feel more comfortable with an elderly man as opposed to a young man or a young woman for the same reason. But men are more likely to make me nervous because men are more likely to be able to beat me up.

    Then you would agree that it is reasonable for me to distrust women when I am with my six-year-old godson since women are more likely to assault and murder children? And it is reasonable to distrust feminists because of their support of violence inflicted by other feminists on males? In other words, it is reasonable to distrust you because of your gender and ideology?

    I would not presume to dictate to you whether you should trust me or anyone else. But I will point out that your premises are false.

40. Oh yeah Gonz! Let’s go with anedotes then. Every single act of violence against me has been a white guy. Every single one.

    So, Jane Q. Random, who has never been the victim of a violent crime by anywone should “mistrust” men for things that happened to other people, but if I am mistrustful of people whose racial group has hurt me, I’m a racist; and if I don’t want to get married again because women have hurt me there, I’m a misogynist?

    Gotcha.

41. The problem is that you are hung up on “deserving.” Automatic trust isn’t about what you “deserve.” It is more about practicalities.

    No one is entitled to automatic trust, so that point is moot. The issue is whether one group should be trusted less (that is, they are less deserving of trust) than another based on factors which it has no control over (gender, race, size, age, the actions of others, etc.). This is an important because when the genders are reversed you do not support the same distrust.

42. Not at all. Jane Q. Random should respond with warmth and friendliness to any male stranger whose fancy she catches, and if she doesn’t, she’s a paranoid twat, no better than a racist. That’s what you meant to say, yes?

43. Antigone and Hugo: Race and gender are not always as analogous as one might think, but in this case they are – what we’re talking about here is profiling. Now perhaps in your anecdotal experience blacks victimize whites more often via racial profiling, but in my experience the opposite is true. (As for women being more “oppressed” than men, that’s utter nonsense. Consider genocide, mass executions, etc. – in all cases in modern and probably past history, it’s men who are targeted. Also, a recent United Nations report, Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns, noted, “it is men especially who might be expected to be trafficked for forced labor purposes.” I won’t follow this path further because it’s thread drift, but hopefully you get my point.) In this case Hugo’s not only advocating gender profiling, but further he’s holding the victim responsible and going as far as holding him responsible for doing nothing (i.e., “omission”). Apparently Hugo feels that if a boy isn’t actively engaged in fighting an ill-defined theoretical cockamamie paranoid conspiracy (i.e., patriarchy) then they’re guilty of something and in need of being dealt with. Sounds like fascism and oppression to me.

    Profiling a person because of their membership in a group they were born into (i.e., race, gender, etc.) is reprehensible. Such prejudice is usually based in ignorance, hubris and/or bigotry, and while I think that Hugo is probably not guilty of the last (at least not intentionally), he seems to be guilty of the first two.

44. Tell you what. I’ll grant that men have “no right to be assumed harmless” in a parking garage if you’ll grant that women have “no right to be assumed harmless” in a marriage, where the divorce rate is 50% in America, where 70% of those divorces are filed by women, where a woman will almost certainly be awarded primary custody of the children and a man may end up paying a huge portion of his income to support children he may only see every other weekend.

45. Can you imagine if guys started smiling at other male strangers on the streets, in the malls, on the buses, in public toilets.

    Oh right! When that happens that stranger beats the fucking poofter into a bloody mess.

    But when women don’t want to be forced into false socialization with men, we’re called bitches.

    Y’all might be harmless, but you’re sure as hell controlling.
    

46. “Chief,” the fact that more women file for divorce than men is not evidence that women are more likely to be responsible for the breakdown of a marriage.

    Be that as it may, however, you have every right in the world NOT to assume that women are harmless as spouses. In fact, I very much urge you NOT to marry — or at least not to marry a woman.

47. Chief, that’s thread drift. Next person to mention divorce in this thread — from any position — will have their commented deleted. This is not the forum, my MRA friends, to bring in your old warhorses.

48. Profiling a person because of their membership in a group they were born into (i.e., race, gender, etc.) is reprehensible.

    Absolutely. It is profiling. And it is wrong. Especially when the profiling points to false conclusions (i.e. women are in more danger than men). This is dumbness squared. However, this is the situation at the moment. Men are judged wrongly with suspicion because of this type of profiling. It’s no more right than profiling blacks as muggers because they’re black. It’s negative stereotyping used to discriminate.

49. Well, maybe you can talk to a lawyer about suing a woman because she didn’t say “Morning” back to you as she passed you on the street. Since a random stranger’s personal choice on how to react to you is just like the actions of law enforcement.

    The part you keep deliberately missing is that women are punished for failing to profile. A woman who says ‘hi’ and gets harassment and sexual aggression back is assumed to have been foolish, and to be responsible for defusing the situation “nicely”. Whereas if you say ‘hi’ to a black man walking past you, and he tries to take your wallet, nobody scolds you and tells you that anybody knows better than to talk to strange black men, or that you must have pissed him off somehow.

50. Dave, no one’s talking about profiling. Profiling is what the TSA does at airports. We’re talking about the unscripted, simple interactions between women and men. Men rape women frequently. Women rape men, well, less frequently. Expecting two strangers to be equally open to smiles and trust despite these facts is absurd.

51. Hugo, it doesn’t even have to get to the level of rape. It’s about signaling that one is willing to accept a stranger’s invitation to engage.

    By the way, I can’t help thinking back to your post where you complained that strangers don’t want to talk to you on airplanes.

52. By the way, I can’t help thinking back to your post where you complained that strangers don’t want to talk to you on airplanes.

    Oh, but that’s different. People on airplanes should know I’m just a harmless ENFP looking for a temporary buddy.

    Sigh. Mythago, you caught me…

53. Hugo, mythago, et al.: You folks are engaging in thread drift.

    It’s not about smiling at each other, men raping women, etc. It’s about Hugo advocating getting on men’s case for being miffed when feminists (women and men) engage in gender profiling.

    Sheesh, farbeit for me to emplore you to remain on-topic.

54. Not at all. Jane Q. Random should respond with warmth and friendliness to any male stranger whose fancy she catches, and if she doesn’t, she’s a paranoid twat, no better than a racist. That’s what you meant to say, yes?

    Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but no luck. Just pointing out where you should check your premises.

    To be perfectly, bluntly, and brutally honest, I don’t give a fig if a woman “trusts” me or not. If she doesn’t, it’s just not worth the effort to try to change the perception. 6 billion people in the world. I have other fish to fry.

    By all means – reach across your seat and lock your passenger door when you see me. It won’t bother me, because I have real problems to deal with.

55. Men rape women frequently. Women rape men, well, less frequently.

    Blacks rob people frequently. Whites rob people, well, less frequently.

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    First is the obvious one – men do not rape women frequently – particularly stranger rape which is a small fraction of overall rapes – and overall rapes are perpetrated by a very small fraction of men; nor do blacks rob people frequently. Even though statistics point out that a higher percentage of blacks are involved in street crime than the percentage of whites, it’s ridiculous to say that ‘blacks frequently rob people’. It is in fact, a lie.

    Secondly, it is profiling. It is judging people by their physical characteristics, not their behaviour. My radar is a little more sensitive than that, thank goodness. Frankly it is sexist and racist to judge someone by their skin colour/gender.

    Hugo, I think you’re being rather ‘fundamentalist’ in your approach to demonise ALL men (i.e. guilty before innocent). It’s far more street-wise to judge people by their behaviour than their gender or skin colour. It will prevent you from sexist/racist thoughts WHILE being more accurate in your appraisal of possible dangers in front of you.

56. “Can you imagine if guys started smiling at other male strangers on the streets, in the malls, on the buses, in public toilets.

    Oh right! When that happens that stranger beats the fucking poofter into a bloody mess.”

    Wow – that’s some grand melodrama and hyperbole you’re presenting. I smile at other men – black, white, et al. – all the time and have never once been beaten or otherwise attacked either physically or verbally. Your presumptions betray your apparent prejudice in a rather stark but informative way. The vast majority of us men simply are not the kind of walking time bombs you’ve heard about in women’s studies courses.

    “But when women don’t want to be forced into false socialization with men, we’re called bitches.”

    We’re talking about Hugo excusing and even advocating general mistrust of all men by women, not ‘forcing anyone into false socialization with men.’

    I’m not asking you to talk to me, I’m simply asking you to not automatically presume that I’m out to attack, rape, etc., you. Frankly I don’t care if you even look at me, just don’t pre-judge me if you haven’t even met me.

57. I smile at other men – black, white, et al. – all the time and have never once been beaten or otherwise attacked either physically or verbally. Your presumptions betray your apparent prejudice in a rather stark but informative way. The vast majority of us men simply are not the kind of walking time bombs you’ve heard about in women’s studies courses.

    So gay bashing isn’t real and there’s no precedent for one man attacking another because of a perceived homosexual advance? Duly noted.

58. Hugo,

    Men have no right to have women assume they are harmless. And, frankly, women have no right to have men assume they are harmless, either.

    Humans, whatever their sex or race, should not be trusted until they have proven that they can be trusted. And even then, it pays to be cautious and “trust but verify.”

59. Expecting two strangers to be equally open to smiles and trust despite these facts is absurd.

    Saying that you should be wary of strangers is much different that saying an entire group of people cannot be trusted. The former is reasonable; the latter is not. The former is based on a lack of knowledge about a particular individual; the latter is a prejudgment based on the actions and behaviors of other individuals over which one has no control. If we should base our trust on precedents, then it would be reasonable to say gays should not trust Christians and children should not trust women since both groups have a proclivity for violence towards the other. But I do not think you would agree with such distrust, so we are left with an inherent contradiction. The distrust is not allowed (according to your position) to swing both ways. Only males should outright be distrusted, despite the infrequency of random violence against women. (If you check the stats, you will find that the vast majority of victims of stranger violence are male.)

    A further contradiction could exist if individuals are not allowed to decide who they do or do not trust. For instance, can a male who has experienced violence at the hands of women distrust all women? Can a white who has been a victim of black violence distrust all blacks? Can a gay male who has been victimized by Christians distrust all Christians? Would those people be labeled as anti-woman, anti-black and anti-religion or would their trust be equally justified?

    This is an inherent problem with this logic and I would appreciate if you addressed it. While a person is entitled to trust or distrust whomever he wishes, as a society we have a right—and the obligation—to say that such prejudgment is a form of discrimination. In this instance, such discrimination leads to unwarranted fear, hatred, anger and eventually violence towards the prejudged group. Unfortunately, those factors lead to that group distrusting the prejudging group, creating a cycle of continuous distrust.

60. So gay bashing isn’t real and there’s no precedent for one man attacking another because of a perceived homosexual advance? Duly noted.

    My emphasis. Wow, a precendent exists. It doesn’t mean all men are gay-bashers, or must be presumed to be gay-bashers. By all means subscribe to this belief, but please accept you are a sexist if you believe such ignorance. There is a precedent that exists whereby a black person has robbed another person. Does that mean all black people are potential (as in, likely) robbers? No. As has been repeated to death here, to believe such stereotypes would involve someone to accept racist or sexist beliefs, which, evilfizz, I believe you are subscribing to.

61. If we should base our trust on precedents, then it would be reasonable to say gays should not trust Christians and children should not trust women since both groups have a proclivity for violence towards the other.

    The list is actually endless. By the way, before anyone jumps in with their two left feet, I don’t subscribe to the below statements, I’m just making a point:-

    Don’t trust women because there is a precedent whereby women have screwed over their husbands in the divorce courts.

    Don’t trust women because there is a precedent whereby women have abused their own children.

    Don’t trust women because there is a precedent whereby women have been physically violent towards their partners.

    When you think about it, it’s ridiculous to pre-judge anyone based on their gender or race, or any other arbitrary attribute.

    I’m waiting for the “yeah, but, y’know, it’s different to judge women that way….men are fair game because…. {insert dodgy, baseless reason}”.

62. No. As has been repeated to death here, to believe such stereotypes would involve someone to accept racist or sexist beliefs, which, evilfizz, I believe you are subscribing to.

    Certainly not. My point is a sarcastic one: there certainly is a precedent for gay bashing and similar behavior. And it also has been known to be precipitated by “I didn’t like the way he looked at me,” i.e., a smile, a misinterpreted gesture, etc. Men certainly have reason to be wary in their encounters with strangers, which is my point. Gestures you (in the generic sense) think are friendly may be misinterpreted by strangers.

63. Certainly not. My point is a sarcastic one: there certainly is a precedent for gay bashing and similar behavior. And it also has been known to be precipitated by “I didn’t like the way he looked at me,” i.e., a smile, a misinterpreted gesture, etc. Men certainly have reason to be wary in their encounters with strangers, which is my point. Gestures you (in the generic sense) think are friendly may be misinterpreted by strangers.

    Your point is analagous to black people (street crime) and women (divorce courts, child abuse) – a minority of these groups of people behave badly – do we then assume ALL of these groups are likely to behave badly? Should we react to all members of these groups with distrust?

    Like others have stated, I couldn’t care less if a woman thinks I’m going to rape her just because I happen to be walking in the same area as her. Her thoughts are not my problem. It only becomes my problem if she manifests her paranoia in some way like a call to the police on her mobile.

    I judge the siutation based on the location and time of day more than the person. If I take a short-cut through a park late at night, any person is a potential threat to me. If I am shopping in a supermarket, it’s almost the opposite – nobody is a threat. See? I didn’t mention gender or race. I think my radar works pretty well (has kept me out of trouble).

64. Dave, with all due respect, you’re still missing my point. I am not making the assumption that because some men behave badly, everyone should assume that all men behave badly. My point is that there are plenty of circumstances in which men, as well as women, have reason to fear strangers and how they will react.

    Women may fear smiling at or exchanging pleasantries with a stranger because of a fear of rape or assault. Men (particularly gay men) may fear strangers owing to a concern about gay bashing. The fear is still of strangers.

65. My point is that there are plenty of circumstances in which men, as well as women, have reason to fear strangers and how they will react.

    If that is your point, it’s something we can all agree on. I think whatever triggers the ‘alarm bell’ in our head is a moot point (be it a smile, or just a strange line of questioning or whatever).

    I disagree with Hugo saying that men as a class don’t deserve to be assumed harmless. Listen, I *do* assume men (and women) to be absolutely harmless in day-to-day life. As I stated in my previous comment, I assume NOBODY to be harmless in a dark tree-covered park, late at night with no witnesses around – man or woman. In daylight, in a high-street, it then comes down to behaviour, not anything to do with their gender or race (or any other arbitrary attribute).

66. Women may fear smiling at or exchanging pleasantries with a stranger because of a fear of rape or assault. Men (particularly gay men) may fear strangers owing to a concern about gay bashing. The fear is still of strangers.

    Actually, the fear is of a specific group. Reverse the groups. Would you find that fear acceptable? That is the point you are missing. General distrust is acceptable because you have no knowledge of the person. Distrust of a particular group is unacceptable because the only basis for that distrust is the actions of others.

67. General distrust is acceptable because you have no knowledge of the person. Distrust of a particular group is unacceptable because the only basis for that distrust is the actions of others.

    Toy Solider, you succinctly say in two sentences what I’ve been trying to say in my last 5 or so posts.

68. Could there also be an element of “respect by distance” vs. “respect by involvement” here?

    FWIW, I think it would benefit many of you to travel to other places in order to get a more multi-layered view on the “suspicion of others” issue.

    - While I was in Korea last summer, I found most public interactions to be rather straightforward, without a lot of interpersonal “chit-chat”. This may leave those who appreciate the “chit-chat” (and associated non-verbal gestures) a bit cold, leading them to believe that most Koreans are brusque. However, this is a standard code of respect for Koreans, stemming from Confucian ideals – you need not needlessly impose on strangers, and you expect others to do the same (i.e. “respect by distance”). I understood this before I went, and found many Koreans to be very gracious and accommodating once I got to know them.

    - OTOH, in many areas of Indonesia (and I’m sure elsewhere) where tourism has hardly made a mark, many travelers, including those who enjoy a lot of interpersonal contact with strangers, grow weary of the “Hello mister” phenomenon, i.e. any non-Indonesian-looking stranger walking through one of these locales will be surrounded by people who shout out “hello, mister!”. (NB: “Hello mister” may also be directed towards female tourists – it may be the only English these people know.) Once you stop to say hello, they may ask really personal questions (are you married, any kids, what’s your job, etc. – in Indonesian, of course). No malice intended, of course; they are trying to be friendly to a stranger (“respect by involvement”). But truthfully, could many of you be able to handle this each time you meet a stranger on the street for long, even in this context?

69. Ed, I’ve spent 3 years in Japan, 1 year in Thailand, several trips around SE Asia – lived around Europe and am now in the UK (and heading out to Thailand for a further 6 months from next month). I enjoy travelling, and my job lets me do it.

    I’ve learnt to TRUST people, more than distrust them (which is what I think you’re saying in a way). People are great, and unsung by the media, by and large. Seriously. We should do a LOT more trusting, because people WANT to be trusted and relied upon. It’s part of the human condition to want to be trusted. This is not a co-incidence: the more you trust people, the more likely you are to be surrounded by trustworthy people. Because of my afore-mentioned fact: people want to be trusted. You don’t trust people? Guess what? You find yourself around untrustworthy people. Untrustworthy in your eyes. There are bad people, for sure. A very small minority. Do you choose to form your opinion of the entire population based on the behaviour of a small minority? If you do so, you will live a miserably limited life of paranoia: all Arabs are potential terrorists, all men are potential rapists, all blacks are potential muggers, all women are potential child abusers. How sad to live such a life.

    The big lesson in life is learning to trust people.

    And life will sometimes try to take your eye off the ball. Don’t take your eye off the ball. Learn to trust people.

70. DTR: That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying that the manifestation of what each of us construes as “trust” is different – simply that. Ideally, one should be aware of all possible conditions of building “trusthood” given any interaction. However, that’s a bit too taxing for many people. It certainly is not impossible for a “respect by distance” person to gain the trust of a “respect by involvement” person, and vice versa. But it does take a lot of work on both sides. And many pre-interactions between strangers happen within seconds – certainly not a lot of time to assess construals of trust.

    I do indeed trust a lot of people whenever I’m out and about, but I’m also on my guard for any potential misunderstandings and misconstruals of “trust” from either myself or my interactors. BTW, I’ve always enjoyed my conversations with the local people whenever I’m in Indonesia (I grew up in a similar social environment) – it’s just that I personally am tired of hearing complaints from fellow travelers that “the people are nice – they’re just really nosy at times”.

71. Listen, I *do* assume men (and women) to be absolutely harmless in day-to-day life. As I stated in my previous comment, I assume NOBODY to be harmless in a dark tree-covered park, late at night with no witnesses around – man or woman.

    You are well aware that plenty of us do not in fact have the luxury of assuming strangers harmless in our day to day activities?

72. You are well aware that plenty of us do not in fact have the luxury of assuming strangers harmless in our day to day activities?

    As a member of the group most likely to suffer a random stranger attack (i.e. youngish male), I am supposedly not given this luxury in the first place. However, I can still choose to generally trust strangers. Perhaps because I choose not to put myself in harm’s way (i.e. walk down dark allies, walk home alone on a Satuday night passed busy pubs etc). I think my life would be a lot less enjoyable if I walked around with one hand on a mace spray.

73. You are well aware that plenty of us do not in fact have the luxury of assuming strangers harmless in our day to day activities?

    Trust is not a luxury. It is a choice. Risks exist for everyone, including straight males. You can either choose to trust no one and take no risks or choose to trust people and put yourself at risk. But that is your choice. Society does not force you to do it and you should not use it as a scapegoat.

74. As a member of the group most likely to suffer a random stranger attack (i.e. youngish male), I am supposedly not given this luxury in the first place. However, I can still choose to generally trust strangers. Perhaps because I choose not to put myself in harm’s way (i.e. walk down dark allies, walk home alone on a Satuday night passed busy pubs etc). I think my life would be a lot less enjoyable if I walked around with one hand on a mace spray.

    Right. But Dave, as a youngish male, you are also in a better position than many of us to defend yourself from a random attack. Also the random attacks against you or less likely to start of as a seemingly harmless flirtation or come-on to which you are expected to respond with smiles and accommodation. And finally, as a man, you aren’t subject to endless barraging about your obligation to limit your movements in public and to police yourself so as not to invite attack.

    That’s not to say that you don’t have a right to be careful– I think you should be careful — but your situation isn’t comparable to the factors that affect women’s behavior.

75. But Dave, as a youngish male, you are also in a better position than many of us to defend yourself from a random attack.

    His gender offers him no protection from a knife, bullet or physical attack. The notion that because he is male he can protect himself is really just another way of saying because he is male he is in no real danger.

    And finally, as a man, you aren’t subject to endless barraging about your obligation to limit your movements in public and to police yourself so as not to invite attack.

    That is completely untrue. If Dave or I were to get assaulted, people would say we should have been able to protect ourselves (you just stated this above) and should have known better.

    Regardless of that, none of the factors you mentioned justify distrusting all males.

76. The notion that because he is male he can protect himself is really just another way of saying because he is male he is in no real danger.

    Actually, it’s a comment on the fact that he’s more likely to have physical strength and size on his side.

77. Yeah, I didn’t say he could protect himself against all situations. I said he is “more likely” to be able to protect himself.

    Look, this isn’t a zero-sum game, but it’s ridiculous to pretend that men and women experience identical pressures with regard to this issue.

78. And I didn’t see these factors warrant “distrusting all males,” something no one on this thread has advocated. I am making the point that men and women are not identically situated. What is so hard about this?

79. Actually, it’s a comment on the fact that he’s more likely to have physical strength and size on his side.

    That is bad logic since such factors are not true for every male and would not have much of an effect if the assaulter is also male. The only true statement is that both males and females face risks.

80. And I didn’t see these factors warrant “distrusting all males,” something no one on this thread has advocated.

    Hugo stated: In our culture, where rape and harassment and abuse are so common, men have lost the right (if it ever existed) to insist that women should be able to differentiate (in a matter of seconds) between the harmless and the threatening.

    I am making the point that men and women are not identically situated.

    A difference in a situation does not mean one is worse off than another.

81. This is just getting silly.

    “More likely” is not the same thing as “every male.” That’s been pretty clear in all my comments. “More likely” means “more likely.”

    A difference in a situation does not mean one is worse off than another.

    For some reason, you (and many men’s rights people) seem to view this as a contest as to who is which sex is worse off than the other. I don’t really care about arguing that because it doesn’t seem especially important.

    The POINT is that you can’t guage the reasonableness of a woman’s reaction to a stranger’s approach by what a man her age would do in that situation. (Or vice-versa, I suppose.) Women and men are generally subject to different pressures and to pretend we are all alike in our experience of the world is plain silly.

82. Folks, just FYI, I’m going to close this thread tomorrow (Wednesday). I see a lot of us talking past each other and very little productive dialogue.

83. Right. But Dave, as a youngish male, you are also in a better position than many of us to defend yourself from a random attack.

    Attackers do not rob/beat a person they believe they’ll get any trouble with. This is common sense, and statistics bear this out. That’s why the vast majority of muggings feature at least two muggers attacking one individual, or if it’s an individual attacker, the attacker is normally armed.

    If men were more likely to defend themselves, they wouldn’t be top of the victims list because attackers would avoid them. Attackers put the odds in their favour.

    Yes I am male, but that doesn’t automatically make me a martial arts fanatic, or make my skin impervious to a knife or a bullet. And just because I’m male, it doesn’t mean the threat of being stabbed or shot or beaten up is any less than if I were a woman.

    HF, you’ve given a fine example of the myth of male power!

84. That’s why the vast majority of muggings feature at least two muggers attacking one individual, or if it’s an individual attacker, the attacker is normally armed.

    And that’s why, when men think of situations where they expect that a reasonable person ought to be wary, they think of the kinds of attackers from which they are most at risk: strangers, looking to mug them, probably either bigger, armed, or outnumbering them, and probably in situations like those dark tree-covered nights, with no witnesses around.

    They don’t think they’re supposed to mistrust women who are trying to flirt with them and date them. At least, not “mistrust” in the sense that they expect those women to beat them up. And certainly not in the sense that they expect to be blamed for being beat up by said women, because, after all, they dressed sexy, smiled back, or whatever. A flirtatious approach from a strange woman would probably be more weird to you than scary.

    Conversely, if any of you guys had volunteered at the place I once volunteered at, a place that occasionally got guys coming in that were a little drunk and looked ready to fight with each other, you’d never have had my experience of having practically every man in the room that wasn’t in the fight rushing to make sure you were safe and out of the way of trouble. So you’d be much less well protected from those particular angry drunks than I was.

    So, both men and women face threats, but on average face their biggest threats in somewhat different situations, and have somewhat different viable defenses, and therefore will make different judgments about when they need to be careful about trusting people.

85. And that’s why, when men think of situations where they expect that a reasonable person ought to be wary, they think of the kinds of attackers from which they are most at risk: strangers, looking to mug them, probably either bigger, armed, or outnumbering them, and probably in situations like those dark tree-covered nights, with no witnesses around.

    Well I’m not sure I understand you here – you’re complaining now that men can’t understand the dangers women face? It would seem that society doesn’t tell its men about the dangers they face. It would seem society (as exemplified by HF’s comments) just assumes men are big and strong enough to somehow ward off knife/gun/gang attacks all by themselves.

86. I think Lunn Gazis-Sax makes an excellent point. The places where a woman is most likely to be groped or assaulted are places where men most commonly feel rather comfortable- crowded buses, bars & restaurants, on a date etc. So when a woman reacts to man with fear and mistrust in a situation where, to his point of view, there is little or nothing to be afraid of, she’s paranoid and prejudiced. I think that very few men would be insulted, or think her paranoid if a woman crossed the street rather than walk past a large group of young men at dusk or after dark. They recognize the danger in that situation. However they get insulted and bristle when a woman in a bar won’t chat with them, they have never had occasion to recognize the danger that sort of situation can present to her.
    I think rather than saying that women should mistrust men, Hugo is trying to say that men should try to recognize the danger and fear that women experience in situations that often are not at all dangerous to men. In other words- if she’s scared of you (which could be demonstrated by ‘blowing you off’) it probably means someone gave her a good reason to be scared.

87. Dave the Rave, I have made it clear throughout this thread that I AGREE with you that there is a myth of male invincibility that damages both men and women. In fact, I have blogged about this at length over at my place in the past. This is actually one of my pet issues!!!!

    I have never said that men should just be assumed to be able to ward off gun and knife attacks. I have repeatedly said the OPPOSITE! You know that I have been saying the opposite because you responded to some of my comments earlier in the thread!

    The point is that there are VARIOUS factors that affect men and women differently and cause men and women to reasonably respond differently to strangers. One of those is the PERCEPTION that men are able to ward off attacks. One of those is the FACT that men (while not invincible) are often (not always, but often) better situated to defend themselves. Other factors include the fact that women are subject to more warnings and handwringing about their safety (a fact that you yourself implicitly acknowlede) and the fact that women’s asailants are more likely to approach in an a flirtatious manner.

    Per Hugo’s comment, I am ready to abandon this thread. We really are talking past each other.

88. I have never said that men should just be assumed to be able to ward off gun and knife attacks. I have repeatedly said the OPPOSITE! You know that I have been saying the opposite because you responded to some of my comments earlier in the thread!

    I was confused by your comment saying “you are also in a better position than many of us to defend yourself from a random attack (said here)”. Simply not true. I’m in no better position than a woman. Attackers stack the odds in their favour. They’re not going to go toe-to-toe with another guy in a fist fight in order to rob them. They’re relying on weapons or outnumbering their victims. Stats bear this out if you don’t believe me. Look at the number of robberies that feature a knife or a gun, or a gang doing the robbing.

    Other factors include the fact that women are subject to more warnings and handwringing about their safety (a fact that you yourself implicitly acknowlede) and the fact that women’s asailants are more likely to approach in an a flirtatious manner.

    Yes, of course women have more help and publicity about random attacks – to the extent that a lot of guys are unaware of the dangers they, as guys, face walking around late at night. I think how assailants approach women is a moot point – rather, I think the context of such flirtation is more important. Why would a guy choose to flirt with a strange women in a park, late at night? That would ring alarm bells if I were the woman. The same flirtatious behaviour could be done in a nightclub, and it’s par for the course. If a guy approached me in the same park at night (with both of us alone) asking me the time, I’d be a lot more worried than if I was asked in daylight with witnesses around.

89. Laugh if you will, at men being pre-judged to be some morphable combination of Jack the Ripper/Chester the Molester/Coman the Barbarian/Urg the Caveman.
    Remember this when your gal pals sit around bemoaning the lack of articulate educated ambitious responsible men willing to get involved at all much less attach – there’s a reason for reluctance to attach. Go sit in a family court of law for a week and watch how men are treated, you may gain a better understanding of why men are less willing to get involved.
    You reap what you sow ladies, here’s what I mean:
    * That cute guy at the park who totally ignored you? Don’t call him a jerk, call him a modern man who’s been treated like a vile beast when he smiled at a woman tending a toddler… who promptly grabbed said toddler and scurried away in fear.
    * That musculat guy who walked right past you as you stared in disbelief at a flat tire in a cold rainy parking lot? Don’t call him an insensitive brute, call him a man who offered once before and was welcomed with a face full of pepper spray.
    * That gentleman who passed you buy at the grocers leaving you to struggle 4 with bags of groceries and your car keys buried in the snow under the car door? Don’t call him a self centered lout, call him a man who…
    Get it? Men are getting real fed up with being treated like monsters because we were born with balls instead of boobs, and we’re tired of women assuming we’re interested in only *that*, and we’re tired of being treated like Chester the Molester by mothers.
    You bemoan our absence when you need our muscles, but do try to consider: you told us to leave you alone, you attacked us for helping and you scrambled away in fear or tortured us with pepper spray when we offered to help you.
    It never was funny, and it’s become downright despicable. But do try to consider: this is your world you threw us out of… don’t expect us to waltz back in whenever it’s convenient for you.
    You reap what you sow.
    Olde Pharte