Okay, now that I am no longer listed on the Confluence, I feel free to ask some questions I have long wanted to ask.Question 1: Here's a common social situation. A man and a woman are walking abreast (no sniggering, please) down a sidewalk. The sidewalk narrows -- single file is the only way to proceed. At this point, there are two options for the male:
1. The man goes first. If he does this, the woman will surely give him the Standard Feminist Lecture on Why All Men Are Pigs.
2. The man comes to a stop and gestures for the woman to go on ahead. Invariably, the woman comes to A COMPLETE STOP and shoots her male companion a very confused look. This state of confusion may last for somewhere between ten seconds and thirty minutes. In one extreme case known to me, the stand-off lasted all night and the couple had to order pizza.
Okay, I made up that last bit. But that part about the COMPLETE STOP is true. I've been around for untold decades -- and when I say "invariably," I know from "invariably."
Should the man choose option 1 or option 2? How may he expedite matters?
Second question: Back around fifteen years ago, why was it all right for women to make appreciative comments about Mel Gibson's rear -- yet if I made appreciative comments about Jennifer Connolly's breasts, I would be given the Standard Feminist Lecture on Why All Men Are Pigs?
I'll have more questions in future installments...
39 comments:
As it happens I'm the PERFECT person to comment on this! (what are the odds?)
My husband and I walk everyday. And we come to that exact situation several times in our walk.
Our answer? He goes first. He's got the dog. But, aside from the dog, someone's got to go first and I think it should be the person with the longer stride.
Here's MY question:
Man and woman are walking along the sidewalk and they approach another (single) person on the same sidewalk. There's plenty of room for 2 but, not nearly enough for three.
Do you:
Go single file making room for the the stranger?
Keep position of the entire width of the sidewalk with the assumption that the stranger will walk around through the grass or mud next to the sidewalk?
It's ASTONISHING to me but I'd say that 85% of couples don't even consider the single file option.
You should see the look on their faces when I walk straight up to them holding my space. They are totally confused!
What's that about?
I think it should depend on the circumstances. If it's a potentially hazardous situation where there is a possibility of unseen obstacles, muggers or landmines then I say the rule should be "Ladies first"
OTOH, there's a reason I have been divorced several times.
And if there's any chance whatsoever of encountering Jennifer Connelly, the man should of course take the lead.
It's simple, really.
When my dad & I walk on sidewalk, he ALWAYS walks on the street side. Says it's how he was raised... from old times when a man would walk on the street side of a woman in case a buggy should pass and splash mud. (?!) It's charming and courteous, but I don't care, really, who's on the outside.
Half the time, I open restaruant doors for strange men/women. When they do for me, I smile and say 'thank you'. Just depends on who gets to the door first, if someone is close behind, you open it and let them go, ya don't just turn yer butt at them.
The ONLY person I know who opens a car door for a woman is my son-in-law. He says, "My mother taught me to". Seems nice, but not really useful.
It may not be fair, but the habit that my husband has that I cannot get over, is that he leads the way behind the host in restaurants to the table and leaves me to trail behind. Pisses me off no end.
Who said you're a misogynist? I've never thought so.
I've always found that couples walking down sidewalks together usually maintain their position and force you into the street or mud depending on where you're at. Down here in the south, the men will step aside and let the women go first. Up north, I've noticed a tendency for the men to shove through first.
katiebird -
The answer to your question is simple, to my way of thinking: a sidewalk is the pedestrian analogue of a two-lane, two-way road. So the person on the left - regardless of gender - falls back behind the person on the right so that the single approaching person can proceed normally. If two couples approach each other, the leftmost of each couple - as each reckons left - yields.
In the UK, I guess it would be the opposite. :)
Sergei Rostov
Regarding Question 1:
Option 1 is about taking the lead/intiative and protection, Option 2 is about consideration for her ability to do so.
(It's more complex than this - in fact, I'm in the process of writing a book on Feminism which includes this problem - but I'm simplifying it to keep the comment length down...and to get you to buy my book when it comes out. ;))
But there's an Option 3 which combines both notions:
Slip back behind her, and do so as if it's the most natural thing in the world.
She will now be in the lead and will keep moving forward. In this way you demonstate that you can both take the initiative *and* that you trust her to be in the lead.
(Of course, if it's a hazardous situation - or she is pregnant, injured, etc. - you can go first, and she will appreciate it instead of giving you the lecture.)
Sergei Rostov
I once offered my seat on a bus to a woman.
We were in mediation for weeks.
Sergei, your answer to katiebird's question is correct...rules of traffic apply.
But it has nothing to do with gender, and the "couple" approaching one can just as easily be a gang of teenagers or a couple of business people during lunch hour, or a group of tourists.
Moron lunks think they own the entire sidewalk, even if there is no place to step aside for the person approaching from the correct side in the opposite direction.
I do what katiebird does...hold my space. Keep walking. If the moron is particularly clueless, such as so occupied with a cell phone they're unaware of the impending collision, I give a verbal alert by saying, "Hello!"
Joseph, I think now that you've unloaded your burning question you should just lie down for a little while with a cold cloth draped over your forehead, and reflect on that Zen story where the monk carried a young lady over a mud puddle. His brother monk fumed and fretted about it for hours before demanding to know why the monk had touched a woman, which was against their vows.
"I put her down on the other side of the puddle. Are you carrying her still?"
The arch premise depends on whether you buy into Eurocentric manners of etiquette. The rules used to be clear. The man goes first if only one can fit (yeah, ill-bred women think that's brutish) unless an usher or maitre'd provides the escort, and then the woman would follow the escort, with the man following her.
In non-Eurocentric cultures, the man always walks ahead, regardless of the path's breadth, except through mine fields, where the woman walks ahead.
The answer is - because you're hanging out with the wrong feminists. Commenting on Connolly's breasts is acceptable as long as you don't reduce her to that. It would be totally wrong for men who work with her professionally to do that publicly, but friends and family sitting around making an observation like that about a celebrity is totally fair.
As for the walking situation, that's a bit trickier. The problem is that there are so many men who will get out of the car and simply trot on ahead of their wives and girlfriends without concern that they are far behind. If you're careful not to to do that, then scooting ahead of her in that situation won't cause problems - and you do probably walk faster. But if you're careless about that, then it becomes an issue. It's one more instance of you not being mindful of the fact that she is simply smaller than you with a shorter stride. She doesn't like being left behind and appearing to the public as someone you don't value enough to slow down for.
Thank you, Lori, for being subtle in pointing out that I had mis-spelled the last name of the divine JC. I have corrected.
Am I a bad feminist because I've never given this "who goes first" thing a second thought? Polite is polite is polite. I'd rather go first, not because I think, "Hell yeah I can defend myself," but because my legs are shorter and I don't want to inadvertantly get left behind by someone with a longer stride, but really, who freekin' cares? To me it's all about flow. If it works for him to go first, fine. If it works better for me, ditto.
Jeebus.
Here's another burning pedestrian question:
what the hell is up with ass-gaiters?
People who walk right up on your backside? If they're walking faster, let them give you some berth as they go around. I stop, turn, and stare them down if they come right up on me from behind.
My wife and I always have a problem with this, and I've narrowed it down to a basic system problem: the concept is "walking together"; we have a problem because when I slow down to fall behind, she slows down because the pace of our walk has changed. It's not about dominance or anything else.
As for the idiots who don't open to let you have room. I usually just stop dead in my tracks and let them figure it out. If I'm not moving, I figure I can't be blamed.
Michael: I've noticed that "walking together" thing too! She gets angry if I walk too fast. So I slow down -- and SHE slows down, because I did. It's frustrating!
Michael, That's what I do now (and for the last 7 years or so) - it was such a revelation to realize that I had the power. And I get the added amusement of watching their faces as I don't budge.
What does this have to do with unequal jobs and unequal pay? As a woman, this nitpicking over small things drives me nuts.
Years ago, I belonged to a business women's group that had a monthly dinner meeting. Every couple of years we changed locations because the restaurant would begin to take us for granted. One year, at the height of the women's movement, we switched our meeting to a restaurant that catered to business lunch - that was their moneymaker meal. It didn't even pay them to be open to the public for dinner. So our having our dinner meeting there was a nice deal for both the restaurant and us.
On the evening of our first meeting, we were greeted by the Lebanese owner, a man in his 60s who had recently emigrated to the US.
"Welcome, welcome, gracious ladies," he said as we entered the lobby.
One of the women I came in with snarled at him, "Don't call us gracious ladies." And I thought, Oh, my, no. Whatever you do, don't call us gracious ladies.
Two people encountering a third person on the sidewalk is a minor problem compared with a two group encounter.
When I was a kid and our family was walking down a street and we met another family, both families went single file and we all proceeded on our way without trouble or mishap.
Today, groups plow through each other like two herds of cattle.
Let's not confuse rights with graciousness.
You want to fight on jobs and pay, I'm there.
You want to fight on the individual's right to make medical decisions without the state interfering, I'm there.
You want to fight on the citizen's right to have his/her vote counted, I'm there.
But making life nastier by fighting about who goes first, who opens the door, is a waste of our resources and our spirits.
"If he does this, the woman will surely give him the Standard Feminist Lecture on Why All Men Are Pigs."
No wonder you're referred to as a misogynist. You condemned every woman with that comment.
I've been away for a bit, courtesy of a crashed computer. Today is the first time I've been back here in a couple of weeks.
It will also be the last.
Contrary always, I think it's more secure for the woman to go ahead. That way I can watch her back and look ahead and grab her if she mis-steps. If she's behind me I might not notice when some goblin snatches her or if she falls in a hole I've successfully passed.
There is no better demonstration of the second question than the controversy over Mel Gibson's 'sugar tits' remark. (Though he now claims the quotation was an invention of the cops.)
Lori -
Joe's question was why can women say such things about men, but not the other way around. But I'll address what you said first.
Consider: a man says to a woman they admire them for how smart they are, or the fact that they feel things deeply, or that they play sport X well, or that she is beautiful, and she will thank him. In each case, he is treating her as an object (intellectual, emotional, physical-athletic, physical-attractive, respectively), but in each case she will thank him. But if he makes a comment about (for example)her breasts (which is interpreted as treating her as a physical-sexual object), she will be offended. By elimination we see it's not a question of objectifying her, or that this is done as regards her physicality, but that it is done as regards her sexuality.
What it really is is one expression of the Neopuritan streak in American Feminism, combined with sexism against males, expressed this way: women's sexuality is vulgar, but only when commented on by men, or expressed in such a way as to give pleasure to men. However, men's sexuality is ok for women to comment on or get pleasure from at any time and in any way.
-----------
On to Joe's Question 2.
It has been asked of various prominent feminists how they justify this and other double standards as regards sexuality, and the answer you get is some form of: women have traditionally been sexuallly mistreated/abused/oppressed by men in the past, so it makes women afraid when men objectify them sexually. They are saying, in other words, that all women live in constant fear of gettting raped by men in general, so don't give them reason to be more afraid that you specifically will rape them. I don't know if this true - if it is, the women I have met sure don't act like it - but that is what prominent feminists say.
Sergei Rostov
Now, now, creeper, come on. Look at the title Joseph gave his own post, and lighten up.
It's completely different for him to pose folksy gender tiffs like this....and for others to post diatribes on how sites which center on sexism are "male-bashing covens of radical lesbians on a crusade."
This post strikes me as one of those "taunts" you always see in pro-wrestling matches (I just saw The Wrestler). Completely different from actual bigotry.
Besides, Anonymous's long interesting comment shows that ugliness is not gender-specific. I disagree that pettiness is not worth addressing. It's not worth equating with true gender-equality fights, but it's most definitely worth addressing!
Zee -
It's easy to clear your path of "moron lunks.".Do what I do: carry small bags of various street drugs. Which one you toss to the side depends on you assessment of their economic class:
Low - pot, crack, crystal meth
Middle - pot, crystal meth
Upper - coke
Result? Instant clear sidewalk.
(Of course, you'll eventually get arrested and jailed, but you'll *never* have to worry about 'moron lunks'.... :))
Sergei Rostov
Thank you for your comment, creeper. Your comments are very important to us and we appreciate them.
I think your basic problem is that you even think about this as an issue. The fact that either one of you should go first/last based on gender is ridiculous, and is why you probably feel like you can't make the right choice. Try not 'making a choice' about what she wants you to do and instead do what works the best (generally following traffic rules makes the most sense, is the easiest, and most natural).
Snark is wasted on the stupid, and creeper is the kind of person that brightens a room by leaving it.
ok, now...personally, I appreciate Dancing Opossum's post, but I would've appreciated it more in response to the heavy-handed clown's remark rather than my own! :)
Creeper may have missed snark, but calling her "stupid" and then continuing the personal attack makes her point better than she did herself. And, I must whine...why does the clown get to personally attack "stupid" posters when I'm invariably censored for my snarky comments about one mind-numbingly boring-ass old geezer "regular" who thinks he's funny (and, as par for the course, whose joke upthread is not only not funny but boringly unfunny in an old-fashioned misogynistic way) ?
It was excruciating to let his lame joke go unsneered at...but I did so, and now here the clown is free to sneer at another poster!
"They are saying, in other words, that all women live in constant fear of gettting raped by men in general, so don't give them reason to be more afraid that you specifically will rape them. I don't know if this true - if it is, the women I have met sure don't act like it - but that is what prominent feminists say."
First of all, this entire argument is based on guys saying what is and isn't "allowed." Says you. No one asked me. I don't comment on male actors' asses, nor do I giggle or join in when others do so. I don't join in on women's night out putting money in male stripper thongs and I think the entire industry is vile and the last thing women should do is imitate men.
So, pardon me if holding dumbass women who are acting like men up as examples of what we "allow" is not an argument that holds any water for me. I may not be a "prominent feminist" in the nation's eyes, but don't be telling me what prominent feminists do or don't say. I think I read a hell of a lot more of what they say than you do.
Women who go to strip joints and comment on men's asses remind me of all the "bridezilla" shows...based on all the moronic young women who give more of a shit about weddings than they do about marriage. They aren't looking for a male life companion, they're looking for a groom. Welcome to the products of the patriarchy, guys. Yeah, they exist but they sure as hell aren't feminists, even if some feminists make allowances for them.
Sergei, in answer to your genuine, serious point of whether women live in constant fear of getting attacked/raped...yes, we do. It manifests itself whether or not we face it or cower from it. For instance, one time when I went to a coffeeshop at night with a male friend, he parked in the rather remote lot behind the building....right next to a windowless van. I laughed in his face, and explained to him that a woman would never in a million years do that. I was a regular at that cafe, and when I parked there I made sure to do so far from other vehicles, and looked all around before unlocking my door and getting out.
Fact of life for women. Men will just pull up and park next to a van in a deserted lot at night...without a thought or care. Completely clueless how different it is for women.
Now do you see why some women have no tolerance for snarks? Or why some "prominent feminists" make allowances for women who have only "progressed" to fratboy ribaldry?
So did anyone ever give you any info on why you were delisted from T.C.?
I know what happened to L.R. but I haven't seen you post or allow anyone to post anything untoward about PUMAs.
Mister Cannon always writes 'misogynist' whenever he should write 'male chauvinist'. Hey, the street scene in "Crash" when Sarah Bullock grabs her olman's arm to cuddle as soon as she sees two dark guys walking toward them, one of whom gets the message and says so and wreaks vengeance - cool beans! My only - only! - (very minor) issues about feminism's second wave were its influence on Major League baseball's switch to tight, body-fitting uniforms and the unearned popularity of televised basketball (when women, aged 18-49, represented the major teevee advertising target audience).
The Jesuits gave us One Good Thing: the principle of casuastry.
If the female is young and blithe, she should take whatever position assists an older man down the road a little further. If the male is courtly and adequately mobile he should make the gesture that is most likely to a) get an elderly woman a little further down the road b) get a young and blithe woman under his spell. Whether this is by leading or following depends on the national norms and local customs.
It's very simple.
Be genuine and use common sense.
If you are about to say something stupid, think about if it's something you would say to your mother or sister and act accordingly.
Zee -
Well, to me feminism means women should be free to act whatever way they choose, be whatever they want to be (within the bounds of law and consent) without men or other women being able to tell them what is and isn't allowed.
Hey, I am simply telling you what *I* have read prominent feminists saying on the subject (and it's interersting how you claim to know how much I have or haven't read on the subject; more on that later).
You make various claims as to what motivates various women, say they are being less evolved, or that they are being manipulated by "the patriarchy", but they may in fact simply be different from you, and acting in accordance with their own natures, being no better and no worse than you.
As for your answer to my "fear of rape" question, you claim that all women do live in constant fear, even if they don't face it. That last part makes the argument a tautology: "you feel this way even if you won't admit it" is a statement impossible to disprove even in theory, and so is useless to the debate.
(Now you may in fact be a massively gifted telepath, able to completely scan the thoughts, emotions and memories of both me and all women, and to analyze all this information in incredible depth and reach correct conclusions, all with lightning speed, but if not, your claims as noted above are your own opinion, rather than fact.)
Also, the example you give doesn't demonstrate "constant fear" but "reasonable situational fear" i.e. some situations are objectively more dangerous than others. Men's differing behavior may be a result of ego, pride, or even perhaps a need to/feeling that they should court danger. Neither set of behaviors necessarily indicates anything as regards my question.
Sergei Rostov
Additional: It occurs to me that one can resolve the question 'Do all women live in constant fear of attack by men?" by using two sets of logical statements:
Set 1:
Given: All women live in constant fear of attack by men.
IF said fear IS justified, THEN
all men must therefore be possessed of a mania which causes them to want to attack women, i.e. all men are clinically insane.
Set 2:
Given: All women live in constant fear of attack by men.
IF said fear IS NOT justified, THEN all women are exhibiting a major psychosis, a radical lack of reality contact, i.e. all women are clinically insane.
Since it is evident that both conclusions are false, it follows that the Given must therefore be false.
Sergei Rostov
p.s. Joe, now that you've done this post, methinks it's time for another installment of Ask Mr. Prick. :)
I suspect this has nothing to do with misogyny and whether a male can understand a woman's point of view. It has to do with the Jewish lobby and the sad fact that no political party in the US can hope to prevail if it does not court it obsequiously. PUMA hopes to be a player in coming elections, and having its pro liberal but anti Obama position labelled antisemitic because it links to a blog which courageously calls Israeli oppression and fascism what they are would make that - difficult. So - dump the Palestinians (also semitic, by the way) and continue to cosy up to the far right Israelis and their fanatical hatred.
This is just politics as usual. I am sorry to say.
Sergei, the problem with your little logic demo is that you didn't specify that all women were afraid of all men. And I don't recall anyone suggesting that all men are rapists. Many women, at least those who are past naive, understand that some people consider them prey. And, for safety's sake, they accept that strangers might be potential attackers.
I realize that you were trying to be clever but just wanted to point out why you fell short.
That and the fact that hostile attention just isn't funny to someone who has experienced it for all of her adult (and teen… and preteen) life.
Anon -
Ah, no, sorry, there is no problem with the logic. If all women live in constant fear of attack by men it follows logically that all women must be afraid of all men, since a subset of the set of 'all times' - the existence of said set being implied by "constant" - would be 'times they would only be with only one of those men.' (Although a given woman would not likely meet *all* men in the world , it's safe to use induction here to say that their behavior would be the same if they did.) I guess I shouldn't have left out that out; it would have saved me some typing.
I was being logical, not "clever" or "funny"; deductive logic was the best way to disprove the Given, as that would deal with the "set of all." One logical consequence of the Given (that under the Set 1 conditionals) is that all men are rapists at heart, i.e. it was being said, implictly. Set 1 simply made what was really being said more obvious. Also, the original post did not specify comments only by strangers, nor did it imply or assume such.
(On a side note, at least one prominent feminist writer did say that all heterosexual sex consists of a man raping a women: the late Andrea Dworkin, recently praised by the National Organization of Women.)
The point you seem to be making is exactly the point I was making: women do fear attack, but only under certain specific conditions, which are reasonable ones. Therefore (to continue), the explanation given by some prominent feminist writers as to why men shouldn't comment on a women's physical attributes - that it places her in fear of sexual attack by him - doesn't fly. It's a bogus explanation used to disguise the double standard pointed out by Joe in Question 2.
Oh, and for the record: all available evidence seems to indicate that *everyone* - male or female - has been the recipient of hostile attention all their life. I have never met of even heard of someone who hasn't. So it seems that's just part of life.
Sergei Rostov
Anon -
Addendum/correction:
I meant to say :
"Although he original post did do so, the explanation given by some prominent feminist writers not specify comments only by strangers, nor did it imply or assume such."
Also, I left out that the subset of "times she would be with only one of those men" would have a subsubset "times she would be in a reasonably secure situation with a man she should otherwise trust completely" (e.g. behind several locked doors with loving faithful husband of many years). Hierarchical pyramid of induction, you see? Now it should be clear.
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment