Mandela and atheist deathbed conversions »« On that fake Paris Hilton Tweet

Guys in dark alleys shouldn’t get upset if women fear them

I wouldn’t blame a strange woman if she was unnerved by me, a lone guy, if she and I were the only ones walking in a dark alley. I call this the Creepy Default.

This has happened twice, but I was the one unnerved due to doing everything I could not to be creepy (my cane doesn’t help, I suppose). Neither time did the woman walk faster or even appear to notice, but I was flustered.

When I told my friend this, she got upset. She said I wouldn’t hurt anyone and that women have no reason to fear me, alone in an alley.

However, the problem is twofold.(1) I wouldn’t hurt anyone and
(2) women have no reason to fear me.

In terms of (1) My friend knows this, as does anyone who knows me. (Commenters, mostly from Geekdom, would probably disagree. Yes, Thor: The Dark World sucked: Deal with it!) However, people who don’t know me have little reason to think otherwise: obviously, in most situations they wouldn’t assume so. But you could place anyone in a dark alley, in the shape of a dude, and it would appear creepy.

This ties into the second assertion: it is false. Horrible men – men who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for women is/should be to be hesitant about strange dudes (i.e. the Creepy Default).

I’m focusing here on dark alleys, but of course, it can be almost anywhere. The dark alley is representative of wider environments (including digital ones, Mr Send Women Topless Pics of Me and his brother Put Women on Twitter Lists Called “Women to Sleep With”).

I did not create this environment and I would like to see it gone. But, for now, we are fools to think this environment doesn’t exist. It is selfish, arrogant and entirely antithetical to being a good person to assert that because you’re OK, you’re a “good guy”, that women should just be OK with you, that women should trust you while walking in an alley. (That actually tells me you’re not as “OK” as you think.)

You won’t fight that culture created by horrible people in the environments where they tend to play out the worst. If you care, if you really care, about changing that environment, then we need to be doing all we can to not give truth or evidence for the Creepy Default. This isn’t about changing women’s perception but the environment that gives it truth because, for now, I’d rather women were cautious of men, due to men giving so much reason for distrusting their intentions. (Yes, I realise I’m “telling” women what to do.)

You can both acknowledge you would never hurt an innocent person and understand why marginalised people, like women, feel threatened by “your type”. Don’t assert your “good guyness” by bulldozing your way through people’s fear just because you happen to the one good guy left in the world: this is about more than people believing you’re just the nicest guy. This is not about whether everyone acknowledges your character traits; it’s about whether women feel safe in the world.

But then, maybe it isn’t. It can be both. And that can happen, again, not in the situation of a dark alley and your mere dismissal of a woman’s concern for her safety. Again, no one loses out by you temporarily acknowledging why she feels threatened, even if you’re nice, while you do what you can to try make sure innocent people are never hurt again. You won’t lose out on your Nobel Prize because the strange woman in the alley was fearful of your proximity, because she didn’t know you.

However, a question that arises for me is if this is not double-standards, as when people have distrusted me when I wore “Muslim garb”. That is, they were afraid I might commit a bit of terrorism. Should I have the same attitude?

Is it double-standards to accept that as a male, I understand and acknowledge women’s fear if they ever convey it – but to find it problematic to be profiled as a terrorist (this was when I was a teenager)? Is it wrong to dislike being judged because of the colour of my skin, but more understanding when it’s judging my sex?

I think yes since there is more justification for the sex judgement – the Creepy Default – because there, we have plenty of evidence that misogyny and sexism is a rampant, persistent problem. It exists on multiple layers. Race terrorism, on the other hand, has little justification: That I was, even then, an atheist was meaningless. I was judged dangerous because these people believed all “Muslim-looking” people were dangerous.

Sure, not all men are dangerous but a lot are. A significant, stupid, persistent number. The same can simply not be said of Muslims or people from Muslim countries.

But perhaps I’m missing something? Thoughts?

Comments

  1. Jason Wedepohl says

    Hi Tauriq

    Came across this recently. I was wondering what you think of it. Looks staged, but for our purposes let’s assume it was a real event.

    http://9gag.com/gag/aEwq2dx?ref=fb.s

    Some background: Consensus among posters on 9gag seems to be that justice was served. This is also the view of the FB friend who shared the link, as well as a bunch of his friends. All UCT students. Their opinion seems to be that his action was “perfectly reasonable.”

    Thanks
    Jason

  2. Pen says

    I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time wandering around in situations where some women get fearful of men and I do appreciate it when men signal their non-threateningness in various ways. I’m sure some people will say there is no reason why a man should put himself to any trouble at all in such situations. That’s very true. There is no obligation to make other people’s lives easier beyond the call of duty. But it’s an option, and appreciated when done.

    I feel more comfortable if a man approaching me head on gives some minor acknowledgement of my presence, like a nod and an ‘evening (or whatever is the local custom) in very casual, neutral tones. If someone is walking behind me, I will inevitably be nervously conscious of the rapidly approaching footsteps, if they walk faster than me, or of them keeping a steady pace behind me if not. Not a nice feeling. One guy who was walking fast behind me at 3am once crossed the street to pass me then crossed back again. I couldn’t believe he was so aware and did such a nice thing. Dropping back is a nice thing to do, but obviously a bit of a pain.

    On the race thing – I quite agree on terrorism, and I’m really only raising a point for the sake of discussion. What about we take a different case – suppose I have a prejudice based on the fact that you ‘look Muslim’ that you’re more likely to hold some attitudes towards women that would bring us into conflict. Or I’m gay. Or an atheist. (Or all three). And purely because of your race, I’m more cautious in my interactions with you.That’s also ‘not fair’ since I’ve happen to have figured out you personally have quite different beliefs. It’s certainly a kind of racial profiling. It would certainly be judging you potentially ‘socially dangerous’ in so far as interpersonal conflict over these things can be quite painful. It’s taking steps to protect myself that might tend to socially exclude you or even lead to active discrimination, depending on our respective circumstances. I can imagine it upsetting you, especially in the latter case. But, as a matter of fact, what do you think?

  3. smrnda says

    Thanks for the post. I usually accept that many men are just clueless and aren’t going to bother to do much to signal they aren’t dangerous or won’t deliberately cross the street, but it irritates me that there’s a small contingent of men who seem to think their *right* to be seen as non-threatening is automatic and that women have *no right* to be bothered, even by them doing things likely to make women uncomfortable. (One *commenter* on a few blogs here states that he feels that he should be able, as a cis straight man, to enter women’s bathrooms and that he’s being oppressed by women who don’t like that. I suspect it was trolling, but it’s hard to tell..)

    On the question as to whether this is equal to racial profiling, I think the answer is not, mostly since precautions around men tend to be deployed more or less all the time to all men, whereas racial profiling is more a tool of singling out groups who are often *not really statistically more likely to do bad things* based on their perceived race. No amount of white males who go on shooting rampages has caused white males buying guns to raise red flags.

    • prodegtion says

      No, that’s not what I said. First of all, I am able to use the women’s bathrooms, and I do. It isn’t illegal, as you seem to believe. I didn’t say I was “oppressed” by women; I said I do not care if they feel uncomfortable. In fact, is a woman ever objects to it, I get furious at them, and have no qualms about teaching them a lesson in gender equality.

      The analogy is apt firstly because, yes, black people are statistically more likely to engage in crimes, and significantly so. That’s not a reason to discriminate against them, just like that’s not a reason to discriminate against men. I believe in equality, something you apparently don’t believe in. It’s simply a matter of fairness, which is more important to me than anything else. We cannot judge a person’s worth if the playing field is not level. If that makes society a more dangerous place, tough shit.

      • thascius says

        Let me guess. You’re really a feminist woman pretending to be a male MRA with a weird fixation about using the women’s room to undermine liberal support for allowing trans women to use the bathroom society assigns to their gender?

  4. says

    There is a group on twitter and the blogosphere — you may know who I’m talking about — who have been spreading a lot of claims about me: that I’m not a feminist, that I’m a rapist, that I belittle women. What they don’t realize is that I have no problem with people being cautious about interacting with me. I am unperturbed if they don’t realize that (1) I wouldn’t hurt anyone and (2) women have no reason to fear me. There is no automatic assumption of trust, and I am not offended if people are wary.

    They don’t seem to get that.

    Maybe people who want to demand unwarranted, automatic trust think undermining automatic trust in others is a potent tactic.

    • prodegtion says

      “There is a group on twitter and the blogosphere — you may know who I’m talking about — who have been spreading a lot of claims about me: that I’m not a feminist, that I’m a rapist, that I belittle women.”

      Wow. Fucking unbelievable. Do you REALLY not see the irony? Do you REALLY not see that YOU DID EXACTLY THAT TO MICHAEL SHERMER???

      You’re a worthless human being, PZ. Your opinion on any issue doesn’t mean squat to me. You deserve to be in prison.

      • Chaos Engineer says

        Do you REALLY not see that YOU DID EXACTLY THAT TO MICHAEL SHERMER???

        OK, I see where you’re confused. You need to look at the greater context.

        The accusations against Michael Shermer came from sources that Dr. Myers believes to be credible, and he also believes that they have no obvious motives for making false accusations.

        The accusations against Dr. Myers are being published by people who aren’t very credible, and who have a clear motive for making false accusations: Their motive would be retaliation for Dr. Myers’ work in exposing Michael Shermer. (Note that the accusations started right after that.) Also note that only known serial liars are reporting the alleged accusations. As far as I know, there aren’t any instances where a credible person has reported hearing an accusation against Dr. Myers from a credible witness.

        Also, when you use that style of capitalization, it just makes you look like a crackpot. Compare what you wrote up above to: “Do you REALLY not see that CREATIONISM IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY EXACTLY LIKE EVOLUTION, you HYPOCRITE???”

        You deserve to be in prison.

        Now you’re just being silly.

        • prodegtion says

          Yeah, third hand anonymous accusations are real reliable. And again with this false dichotomy: it’s not a choice between “the accusations are true” and “the accusations are lies” as you lot seem to think. An accusation can be false WITHOUT it being a lie. But, I shouldn’t be surprised you would make that mistake, since you have already demonstrated you lack reasoning skills.

          Also, way to argue ad hominem, as usual.

          And yes, PZ Myers actions against Michael Shermer are criminal. Look up “libel”.

      • says

        Wow. Fucking unbelievable. Do you REALLY not see the irony? Do you REALLY not see that YOU DID EXACTLY THAT TO MICHAEL SHERMER???

        …and unlike PZ, shermer’s reaction was to go fucking nuclear, while PZ said “I understand your fear”.

        Jeez, you guys are really not very observant.

        And yes, PZ Myers actions against Michael Shermer are criminal. Look up “libel”.

        Actually, Libel is a civil matter, and PZ didn’t engage in it.

        • prodegtion says

          I’m amazed that you guys think this sort of behavior is acceptable. Why should we have any respect for your rights when you tread all over ours?

          • says

            You don’t have a right not to be accused of things, especially not if you’ve done them, which seems likely in Shermer’s case. There’s a lot of corroborating evidence the dude is a massive creeper, and it’s not just Jane Doe who said he committed sexual assault (At all).

            It’s pretty cute that a standard misogynist is pretending to care about our rights though. I think we both know you only care about them when they serve you.

          • prodegtion says

            Actually, you do have that right. Making false accusations about someone is called “libel” or “defamation” and is a criminal act.

            But thanks for admitting that you are a pea-brain who doesn’t know the first fucking thing about science or evidence. You are just like the religious fundamentalists.

        • Pitchguest says

          Is what you think. But remember that time PZ went “nuclear” when a student accused him of rape?

          To which he immediately set out to proclaim his innocence. I guess he didn’t “understand” their fear, then. Oh, and he said something about how accusations of rape can ruin someone’s career. His. Whoops?

  5. Schlumbumbi says

    Something is wrong.

    The date next to the article reads “Dec 8th 2013″… why exactly does Schroedinger’s Rapist haunt us again, although it has been debunked shortly after it came out in 2009 ? Is this a creationist zombie fest ?

  6. BrainyOne says

    But perhaps I’m missing something?

    Yep. You sure are.

    It is selfish, arrogant and entirely antithetical to being a good person to assert that because you’re OK, you’re a “good guy”, that women should just be OK with you, that women should trust you while walking in an alley. (That actually tells me you’re not as “OK” as you think.)

    You’re 100% wrong.

    The fact that there are structures of oppression including sexism, racism, classism and others does NOT mean that irrational prejudices against members of dominant groups are justified or warranted, or that I am in any way obligated to take them into account in my dealings with others. For people who have such irrational prejudices, it is THEIR problem.

    But you will say, many men have acted horribly. Yes, so also have many Muslims, African-Americans, and whatever other group you choose to name. Yet you do not accept, just based on that, that I should be threatened by the mere presence of a Muslim or African-American. And I shouldn’t, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to change their behavior to appear less “threatening”. Same logic applies. If a woman is “threatened” by my mere presence, that is HER problem, not mine.

    • says

      So when white dudes with hegemonic power demonstrably possess, in practice, the right to rape women, with full knowledge that if it came to light the woman would be blamed for it, and when that protection can be applied to even dudes oppressed on other axes (provided their victims are not people), women’s fear is STILL considered irrational. That’s not a hilariously biased set of rules at all.

      • BrainyOne says

        So when white dudes with hegemonic power demonstrably possess, in practice, the right to rape women… women’s fear is STILL considered irrational.

        Yes. Because it is the result of an irrational prejudice that presence of penis = violent threat, full stop. This prejudice is just as irrational as presence of melanin = violent threat or mosque-goer = violent threat. The fact of hegemonic power is irrelevant to THIS fear, which is irrational, and which would persist even in the absence of such power. What hegemonic power IS relevant to is the fact that perpetrators in the dominant group are much more likely to get away with it, and for this reason it is a rational fear for a rape victim that she won’t receive justice in court.

        Again:

        The fact that there are structures of oppression including sexism, racism, classism and others does NOT mean that irrational prejudices against members of dominant groups are justified or warranted, or that I am in any way obligated to take them into account in my dealings with others.

        Do you really mean to deny this?

        • says

          This prejudice is just as irrational as presence of melanin = violent threat or mosque-goer = violent threat

          Why? Because you say so? One of those people has the actual right to engage in the activity we fear, the other two do not.

          or that I am in any way obligated to take them into account in my dealings with others.

          You are always free to be an asshole.

          Do you really mean to deny this?

          Uh yeah, seeing as it isn’t true. Hegemons have rights to trample the rest of us, if they exercise them. What next, you’re going to complain about nonwhite people and the poor fearing the police?

          • BrainyOne says

            Why? Because you say so? One of those people has the actual right to engage in the activity we fear, the other two do not.

            That does NOT make fear of the one person rational, and the other two not. The person is feared ONLY because of a group membership, and a group he did not choose to join at that.

            Hegemons have rights to trample the rest of us, if they exercise them.

            Yes, IF. However there is no basis for an ASSUMPTION that an individual hegemon will choose to do so, without additional information.

            What next, you’re going to complain about nonwhite people and the poor fearing the police?

            People CHOOSE to wear a badge and carry a gun. People don’t choose to be part of a dominant group. Epic analogy fail.

          • says

            That does NOT make fear of the one person rational, and the other two not. The person is feared ONLY because of a group membership, and a group he did not choose to join at that.

            He’s feared because that group actually, factually has the right to hurt us, and walk away with us holding all the blame for it, not solely because he belongs to some group and there’s this great big vacuum in which we fear the group.

            Yes, IF. However there is no basis for an ASSUMPTION that an individual hegemon will choose to do so, without additional information.

            Are you fucking kidding me? You’ve been using it this whole time. Assuming hegemons will use their power is the fucking default choice. The question is how far they’ll go, not whether they’ll use it, most of the time.

            People CHOOSE to wear a badge and carry a gun. People don’t choose to be part of a dominant group. Epic analogy fail.

            What makes you think that affects anything? Seriously, it’s bloody irrelevant that people choose to be part of the police, because the police aren’t something that HAS to be horrible.

        • smrnda says

          Well, some members of dominant groups understand that privilege entails responsibility, and others just go ‘tough shit.’

          • prodegtion says

            “privilege” is just a feminist zombie word. There is no such thing as “privilege”. I believe in EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, the antithesis of feminism.

          • says

            How do words become zombies? Regardless, you really don’t. You believe in more rights and fewer responsibilities for you and yours, and less rights and more responsibilities for me and mine. Go fuck yourself.

          • prodegtion says

            Prove it. What have I said to suggest that I do not believe in equal rights and responsibilities?

            “Privilege” is feminist mythology. There is no such thing as privilege, just like there is no such thing as a soul.

      • Pitchguest says

        Dudes? Really? Do you call women ‘chicks’? (Wait. I guess you do. Bad example.)

        Where do you get this hegemonic power from? Where does this right white men (or, er, “dudes”) have raping women come from? And just women? What about other men? (Or, you know, “dudes.”) Also I’m pretty sure not just men rape, but women too. Just a few months ago there was a woman (a famous cheerleader) molesting a small boy. She didn’t even end up on the sex offenders registry. As for women taking the blame, that is so unbelievably wrong it’s like you’re living in a parallel dimension.

        There have been so many articles of men being put in prison for simply being *accused* of rape, let alone wrongfully convicted, only to be released days, months, even years after. Most of the women got off scot-free. How is that fair? Is that part of the hegemonic power, too?

        I’m a short, not very muscular, not very imposing guy. Why on earth should I have to cross the street, or alert that I’m “non-threatening”, just because a woman happens to be walking on the same sidewalk? Moreover, why just to women? Men, on average, experience violence on the street more than women do, and mostly by other men. Be they “white” or any other “race”, and that is despite any “hegemonic power” us “white dudes” happen to possess.

        This is your problem, Rutee. You don’t see anything else other than your own dogma. Stop it.

        (And stop saying ‘dudes’. It’s embarassing.)

    • says

      It’s not just rape. Its harassment, dehumanizing, and trolling. Activities which you and Prodegtion are engaging in, in this very thread, while simultaneously denying doing so.

      • BrainyOne says

        Sorry, but it’s not “harassment, dehumanizing, and trolling” to be told you’re wrong.

        Kindly grow up or shut up while the adults have a discussion here,.

        • says

          I sense much hypocrisy and projection in you.

          The problem is, we aren’t wrong, and you haven’t offered a single rational or logical reason why we should be considered wrong.

        • Jackie: ruining feminism one fabulous accessory at a time says

          Here’s an idea, you clueless buttnegget, why don’t you fuck off? You’re being a fucking creepy tool. If you had any sense at all, you’d be ashamed of yourself.

          • says

            LOL’ing that “Schlumbumbi” thinks “buttnugget” or “tool” (Who knows!) is a gendered and racist slur … Maybe they’ve been called it so often it’s become intrinsically linked to their gender and racial identity?

  7. BrainyOne says

    @3:

    I usually accept that many men are just clueless and aren’t going to bother to do much to signal they aren’t dangerous or won’t deliberately cross the street, but it irritates me that there’s a small contingent of men who seem to think their *right* to be seen as non-threatening is automatic

    Well, frankly, too bad if you find it “irritating”. Like I said, I am no under no obligation to and will not pander to your prejudices. Absent any real evidence that I constitute a threat, yes I do have a right to be seen as non-threatening, JUST AS MUCH as Latinos, African-Americans, and others. If you see me as a threat anyway, that is YOUR problem and no, I’m not going to bother to “signal” I’m not dangerous.

    On the question as to whether this is equal to racial profiling, I think the answer is not, mostly since precautions around men tend to be deployed more or less all the time to all men..

    But they aren’t applied to women! Are you really that clueless??

    • says

      any real evidence that I constitute a threat, yes I do have a right to be seen as non-threatening, JUST AS MUCH as Latinos, African-Americans, and others.

      spoiler alert: we brown people, at the least, don’t have a right to be assumed nonthreatening. We have a right not to be assumed as threatening *based on our race*. And at any rate, we don’t have that right; we SHOULD, in a proper, non-racist world. And maybe in a world less sexist, dudes might have that right.

      Course, in the real world, fearing people with hegemonic power is just good fucking sense.

      • BrainyOne says

        Course, in the real world, fearing people with hegemonic power is just good fucking sense.

        Then you’ll be fearing just about everyone, since just about everyone is in the dominant class on some axis.

    • says

      You are acting like a threat. You are acting dismissive of women’s concerns and entitled to their attention. In short, you are acting like exactly the sort of man who commits anywhere from sexual harassment to outright rape.

      And you are whining and moaning because we dare to point out the red flags you are giving off?

  8. MadHatter says

    Maybe I missed the news stories where men as a group are being harassed by power structures such as the police because they have been profiled as potential rapists? That’s the biggest difference I see. If I as an individual limit or am somehow careful in my interactions with group X because I perceive group X to be a possible direct danger to me then what harm am I doing to group X? Hurting their feelings by being cautious?

    On the other hand if group X is being targeted by police, security guards of all stripes, or specific laws as a result of my perceptions then there is a problem. This is where the issues with profiling really come up. Some stereotype is being used by people with institutional power to harass entire groups in through legislative, or quasi-legalistic means. That’s very different.

    Men are not going to get harassed by the police for walking through a dark alley at night because they are men. That is the big difference here and why I don’t find the comparisons meaningful.

    • BrainyOne says

      If I as an individual limit or am somehow careful in my interactions with group X because I perceive group X to be a possible direct danger to me then what harm am I doing to group X?

      You are perfectly free to do this. However I am also perfectly free to point out that your perception that a specific member of group X, such as myself, is a direct danger (merely by belonging to group X and for no other reason) is an irrational prejudice; and that I am not going to go out of my way to make you feel “comfortable” should you request it.

      On the other hand if group X is being targeted by police, security guards of all stripes, or specific laws as a result of my perceptions then there is a problem. This is where the issues with profiling really come up. Some stereotype is being used by people with institutional power to harass entire groups in through legislative, or quasi-legalistic means. That’s very different.

      Well of course it is. But you’re here agreeing that it is irrational to view members of group X as threats, merely by virtue of belonging to group X.

    • Schlumbumbi says

      (1) Depending on the situation, you might have a good reason to. After all, the probability for a man to get mugged on the streets is magnitudes higher than the probability for a women to get raped on the street.

      (2) Not even one person here can dispute the well researched fact that rape almost exclusively happens within circles of trust, the family, the workplace, school, friends’ parties, etc. That’s because naturally, in such environments we all tend to feel safer than “outside”. And rapists seem to be very much aware of this disposition, since they frequently use it to their advantage.

      So I’m simply asking this:
      How does it not only make sense, but how can it be morally mandatory, for considerate males, those who don’t rape anyway, to give women a false sense of security (because a positive signal is not a guarantee for a positive attitude) in an environment in which, in all likelihood, isn’t anything going to happen anyway ?

      And maybe, just maybe, it’s more of a man thing to say “NO!” to such a hysterical proposal.

      • babanani says

        Schlumbumbi,

        In reply to your question, I would suggest evaluating the alternative options. If we look at the range of options, perhaps we can determine which is the best or most moral. One is sending positive signals, recognizing they could be false. Another would be sending negative signals, though in this case the male in question is considerate. A third would be neutral, a kind of mid-range option. Perhaps there are other options, but I am not seeing them. If the male is truly considerate, which your question states, which of the three is most sensible?

        The negative signals seems to be out because it falsely represents the intention of the male and I am working on the basis that being truthful is a moral good. It is also out because it would certainly alarm the other person in the alley, for no good reason.

        The positive signals has the virtue of being truthful. It does not give the other person a false sense of security, as your question states, because it represents the real intentions of the male. The other person may choose to question the truth of the signal, but that does not change the truth of it.

        The neutral signal does not alarm like a negative signal, but also does not communicate the real intention of the male. It is like the day to day interaction of many people in the city; you just ignore others. That is pretty functional in many contexts, but it does deny that you think the other person is worth communicating to. Not everyone would agree, but I tend to think all people, by default, are worth something.

        So to try and answer your question, there is a moral reason considerate males should try to send positive signals. It is truthful and it acknowledges their worth. The neutral option isn’t nice, but it works. The negative option is plain wrong.

        With respect, I assert there is a logical flaw in your argument. The argument seems to state that doing a positive thing is not moral to because someone else might deceive. Or that someone else might assume you are trying to deceive. I would argue that doing the moral thing is right, regardless of what others might do or how they might interpret it.

        • Schlumbumbi says

          The problem with your argument:

          One the one hand, you argue that my truthful signalling of being a “non threat” is virtous all by itself, but on the other hand, the basic notion behind this special consideration of signalling being a “non threat”, is to give another person a subjective sense of security.

          The key doesn’t fit the lock.

          If you assert, that the main goal of this exercise, is to give a person a sense of security, then 2 things follow from that.

          (A) First of all, it doesn’t matter if my signal is truthful or not, as long as the recipient thinks it is. I argue, that this it dangerous.

          Establishing such signals in the first place will make people think they can rely on them. But they can’t.
          As I mentioned briefly, getting into a position of trust is a defacto method of most rapists to overcome the defence of their desired victims. And that’s not only valid for rapists, it’s valid for a huge variety of crimes. The more surprising an attack is, the more effective it will be.

          That’s why I think these signals are not only worthless, they’re counterproductive. Noone should give such signals, or be receptive to them. They’re as useful as the TSA patting down 80y old Texan grannies in the airport because {terrorism}. Shame on anyone who contributes to such malevolent schemes. If you think you might be in a dangerous situation – you should be on your guard, and noone should tell you that you shouldn’t be, or don’t have to to be.

          That’s why I think this signalling is an objectively bad thing to do.
          But another problem is already knocking on the door.

          (B) My time, my attention, my energy.
          Even if I accepted, that this subjective sense of security were actually overly important to other people and therefor worth the exercise, I’d still face some problems.

          Firstly, I would have to spend a good amount of my attention, putting myself into the mind of the person I want to give a signal to, which is suitable for the specific situation. How would I do that ? Since I’m not a mindreader, I can only take a “default” position, something along the lines of “what would a reasonable person expect in this situation?”.
          Problem is, if you read the 1st paragraph, you already know my attitude towards the reasonableness of such conduct – I’d see myself not only wasting my precious time, but contributing to a narrative which is morally wrong.

          Secondly, even if I could somehow see past that, I’d face an actual moral problem:
          Why exactly should this special conduct be reserved for women in dark alleys? Is it not the case that other groups, e.g. men in dark alleys, are much more in danger of becoming victims of a violent crime ? Should I not pay more attention to those groups, whose concerns are as prevalent, but magnitudes more realistic ?

          I think I’d more sympathetic to an “each to his own” approach, not limiting myself beforehand, and just judging each situation by its own merits.

          Problem is:
          I can reliably foresee that, if I made this a permanent state of mind, it would cause a permanent raise in “CPU load” on my side, taking up my time and my attention. And I’m not willing to do that. Not only because I refuse to be the person who pays the price for other peoples’ head games, but simply because I need my time and my attention for my own concerns. If I’m approaching another person in a dark alley, I am first and foremost obliged to consider my own safety, and not the other person’s thoughts about theirs.

          • Foible says

            The non-threat signal in this case, crossing the street or alley away from the woman, comes with proof that the signal is honest. The woman can see the increased distance, that can’t be faked to make a false signal.

            I first learned to do this from an Asa Barber column in Playboy decades ago. His point was life isn’t fair or equal and that pretending it is to make a point is bad if it scares vulnerable people.

          • Schlumbumbi says

            Of course it can be faked – if the recipient is visibly in the process of evaluating the situation, the perpetrator can give false signals to make the recipient commit him/herself to the situation.

            Example: Rapist sees victim at dark alley entrance, displays non-threat signal, victim thinks it’s safe and goes into the alley, past the rapist. Now the rapist has successfully lured the victim into a trap and blocks the victim’s way out.

            And make no mistake – that happens all the time. Just go to youtube and see how the dnyamics of many thuggish street fights develop. More often than not, the perpetrator will deliberately give false signals to get near the victim and then strike. This is not a hypothetical.

  9. seraphymcrash says

    Wow, quite an infestation of total assholes you have here. That’s unfortunate.

    There may not be any direct evidence that the misogynists who loudly oppose feminism are more likely to rape or harrass, but they are certainly perpetuating a culture that enables that behavior.

    I’m also chuckling at their commenting tactics. It’s like they just regurgitate the things other people have told them that have really gotten under their skin.

          • prodegtion says

            No one on this thread has provided any statistics or evidence that anti-feminists have a greater proclivity to rape, yet. And neither will you.

          • prodegtion says

            And besides, what is your solution? That people shouldn’t be allowed to be anti-feminist? That we shouldn’t have freedom of speech?

          • says

            No one on this thread has provided any statistics or evidence that anti-feminists have a greater proclivity to rape, yet. And neither will you.

            What makes you think I have an obligation to defend a claim I didn’t make in the first place?

            blockquote>Nor have any statistics or evidence been presented that they enable rape or harassment.

            Burying your head in the sand isn’t going to make things go away, yanno.

            And besides, what is your solution? That people shouldn’t be allowed to be anti-feminist? That we shouldn’t have freedom of speech?

            …Mein gott in himmel, you project don’t you?

  10. says

    For the record, there is plenty of evidence that hostile sexism is linked to proclivity to rape and sexually harass, about three decades worth. If you express negative attitudes about women, expect to be viewed with suspicion.

    • prodegtion says

      Really? There’s three decades worth of evidence that feminists are more likely to commit rape and sexual harassment?

      • says

        It’s almost cute how you’d rather just make shit up than look at the research, except for that part where your own behavior is everything you’re supposed to be railing against.

        No, the research that shows a link between hostile sexism and proclivities to rape and harass is looking at hostile sexism aimed at women.

        • prodegtion says

          So why do you bring this up? I didn’t say there wasn’t a link between sexism and proclivities to rape; I said there wasn’t a link between disagreeing with feminism and proclivities to rape. Nothing BrainyOne said was sexist.

        • Pitchguest says

          Sorry, it’s just that I couldn’t help but notice the complete lack of urls to research in your post.

          Are they in another castle?

          • John Morales says

            How? Both you and he consider it a matter of concern.

            He’s saying they should be treated with suspicion!

            Sorta. More precisely, he’s saying that it’s problematic but understandable because it’s prudent, and therefore considers it an appropriate attitude: “Horrible men – men who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for women is/should be to be hesitant about strange dudes (i.e. the Creepy Default). […] I did not create this environment and I would like to see it gone. […] This isn’t about changing women’s perception but the environment that gives it truth because, for now, I’d rather women were cautious of men, due to men giving so much reason for distrusting their intentions.”

          • prodegtion says

            The title of the post is “Guys in dark alleys shouldn’t get upset if women fear them”. It doesn’t get much clearer than that unless you’re a zealot.

          • John Morales says

            prodegtion, and in the body of the post he writes: “I did not create this environment and I would like to see it gone.”

            So he’s concerned. You claim to be concerned. Therefore, you are both concerned.

            (Admittedly, unlike you, he proposes ways to mitigate this, instead of merely whining about it)

    • Pitchguest says

      Yeah. And there is plenty of evidence that playing violent video games is linked to proclivity to violent behaviour and the urge to kill innocent bystanders. (Mostly men.)

      Oh wait.

  11. Jacob Schmidt says

    I find it interesting that no one, to date, is bothered by the fact that I get nervous in such situations. It seems that when I do it, that’s just me being reasonably pre-cautious. When women do it, they’re accusing all men of being rapists.

    Is it double-standards to accept that as a male, I understand and acknowledge women’s fear if they ever convey it – but to find it problematic to be profiled as a terrorist (this was when I was a teenager)? Is it wrong to dislike being judged because of the colour of my skin, but more understanding when it’s judging my sex?

    In terms of sexual assault, you are almost certainly going to be assaulted by a man if you are a woman. It’s also something a lot of women experience. Violence between races, however, is quite rare. You’re far more likely to be assaulted by someone of your own race. “Terrorism” is extremely rare. The two scenarios aren’t really comparable like that.

    • BrainyOne says

      It seems that when I do it, that’s just me being reasonably pre-cautious. When women do it, they’re accusing all men of being rapists.

      This is, on the face of it, a quite reasonable point. And if the debate were only about taking prudent precautions in relation to strangers (because of your lack of knowledge regarding any individual you don’t know), it would be over.

      But this was not the point of the OP.

      Horrible men – men who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for women is/should be to be hesitant about strange dudes (i.e. the Creepy Default).

      It’s when statistics (or worse, anecdotes) are used to try to paint members of group X as an objective “threat” (solely due to their membership in group X) that the problem comes in.

      How does this sound:

      Horrible Muslims – Muslims who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for non-Muslims is/should be to be hesitant about strange people in brown skin wearing turbans (i.e. the Jihad Default).

      Horrible blacks – blacks who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for non-blacks is/should be to be hesitant about people with lots of melanin in their skin (i.e. the Thug Default).

      This is of course the problem that the OP realizes when he worries about a double standard. And the logic fail is pretty easy to spot. Let’s go a few steps further.

      Horrible Americans – Americans who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for non-Americans is/should be to be hesitant about anyone with a U.S. passport (i.e. the Bomb ‘em to the Stone Age Default).

      Horrible parents – parents who I am not like – have created an environment in which the default position for children is/should be to be hesitant about anyone over the age of 20 with children (i.e. the Pedophile/Abuser Default).

      I could go on and on. The point is that the categories being used to judge people as “threats” are arbitrary and socially constructed to boot.

      • Jacob Schmidt says

        It’s when statistics (or worse, anecdotes) are used to try to paint members of group X as an objective “threat” (solely due to their membership in group X) that the problem comes in.

        I addressed this. Nearly all sexual assault against women is perpetrated by men: 98% of rape and 92% of sexual assault (page 34). Also worth noting is that about 45% of female victims experience sexual violence from a stranger (page 32).

        No, merely being male doesn’t make one a threat. No one argued that it did.

          • anne mariehovgaard says

            You really are a bit slow, aren’t you? “the whole feminist “Schroedinger’s rapist” schtick”= women are not psychic.

    • Schlumbumbi says

      Violence between races, however, is quite rare. You’re far more likely to be assaulted by someone of your own race. “Terrorism” is extremely rare.

      Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

    • thascius says

      The difference is they don’t expect you to favor them with your time or attention if they want you to. As another man you are either a potential threat or background noise. A woman, at any rate a woman they find worth flirting with, is supposed to engage with them and if she refuses there’s obviously something wrong with her.

  12. says

    Once again the misogynists and trolls chime in to prove your point for you. A round of applause, everyone, for their tireless efforts to demonstrate just how much our society is still screwed up and why we need feminism.

      • Beaker says

        I have a question. Where have you actually criticized feminism? I certainly haven’t seen you do so on this thread.

        • prodegtion says

          Feminism teaches that it is immoral for cis men to use women’s bathrooms and other women’s facilities. I have disagreed with that position on this thread, and elsewhere.

          • thascius says

            I know plenty of antifeminist men and women who also believe that cis-men should not use women’s bathrooms. You are, in fact, the only cis-man I have ever come across who seems to think he has a right to use any women’s bathroom or other facility without anyone expressing any disapproval whatsoever.What is the appeal for you? The longer wait times? Standing in line? The fact that you’re in a confined space with women who don’t want you there?

  13. Beaker says

    “Feminism teaches that it is immoral for cis men to use women’s bathrooms and other women’s facilities.”

    Feminism does that? Rather than society as a whole? Where? of all the strawmen of feminism I’ve seen bandied about, this must be the silliest?

      • beaker says

        I’ll take your evasion of my question as an admission that feminism does not actually teach what you say it teaches.

        • prodegtion says

          I have never met a feminist who believes cis men should use women’s facilities even if they want to. So I ask you again: do you think they should?

          • Beaker says

            I have also never met an “anti-feminist” who believes cis men should use women’s facilities even if they want to. Seperate bathroom facilities for men and women are an idea predating feminism, and not originating from nor specifically held by feminists.

            In other words, your claim that “feminism teaches that it is immoral for cis men to use women’s bathrooms and other women’s facilities.” is incorrect. It is not an idea specific to feminism, rather a society wide held belief. Regardless of whether it is moral or not, when you are criticizing that idea, you are not criticizing feminism, you are criticizing an idea held by society as a whole.

          • prodegtion says

            Then you mustn’t have been looking very hard, because there are many, including me. ALL the people I know who believe it is moral are NOT feminists.

          • Beaker says

            Again, whether or not men should go to the men’s bathroom and women to the women’s is not a position that is identified along feminist / non-feminist lines. There are feminists who think it is perfectly fine if men use the women’s bathroom and vice versa. Just as well, there are feminists who think mixing is not okay, and there are non-feminists who think so.

            How hard is it to understand that this simply is not a position that is specific to feminism?

  14. Pitchguest says

    Frankly, Tauriq, you’re being irrational. Listen to your friend.

    Sure, a lot of men can be dangerous but so what? It implies to women too. In fact, you are the one that’s sexist by assuming that you should have to make sure you’re “non-threatening” to a woman walking down the same dark alley, JUST BECAUSE it’s a woman. It’s stupid. You might as well say it’s your duty to make sure you’re not carrying anything that goes boom at the airport JUST BECAUSE you look, er, “ethnic.” That’s like commiting your own racial profiling.

    I say bollocks to it. If people are uncomfortable, women in this case, by me walking down a dark alley (the same dark alley they’re in), that’s *their* problem. If people are uncomfortable by Arabs at airports? Fuck ‘em. That is *their* issue. It is not up for the people ACCUSED to prove they’re “non-threatening.”

    • John Morales says

      [meta]

      It’s understandable that you are unconcerned by a situation that’s not problematic for you personally, but revealing of your character that you bother to inveigh about those who are concerned about it.

      • Pitchguest says

        Those who are concerned? What, by Arabs at airports? I am saying it shouldn’t fall to the accused to prove they’re not a threat (and personally think people who think they *should* can go fuck themselves) and you have a problem with this? In addition, it’s “revealing of [my] character”?

        And there is nothing meta about this, so what the fuck are you talking about?

        • John Morales says

          Those who are concerned are those such as Tauriq, in whose blog you are currently commenting; that is, those who are less than satisfied with the current situation where women at times have reason to be concerned in certain environments.

          The concern is the situation he adumbrates in this very post.

          That you imagine someone being unnerved by men in certain situations is tantamount to that someone accusing those men of being a threat is your own conceit, and not something expressed in the OP.

          That you imagine my noting the disjoint between your ostensible apathy towards the situation the OP discusses and your bravado towards your admitted perpetuation of it.

          That you imagine I have a problem with something I called understandable is also indicative — of your acumen, in this case.

          Yes, it is revealing.

          Regarding my flag, it concerned your comment and its implications rather than the subject at hand — not that I am surprised you are befuddled as to “what the fuck” it meant.

          (It was about the conversation, not about the topic at hand)

          PS I note that, though Tauriq wrote “Muslim”, you read “Arab”.

          (Also indicative)

          • Pitchguest says

            Right. And I’m saying he’s being irrational. I don’t like to repeat myself, so I’ll just leave it at that.

            That you imagine someone being unnerved by men in certain situations is tantamount to that someone accusing those men of being a threat is your own conceit, and not something expressed in the OP.

            Isn’t it? So when he begins by saying that he understands women being “unnerved” by him if they walk along the same dark alley, that’s not something expressed in the OP? And if not a threat, then what is it?

            That you imagine my noting the disjoint between your ostensible apathy towards the situation the OP discusses and your bravado towards your admitted perpetuation of it.

            My admitted perpetuation of it? I clearly explained how my build and appearance would prevent such an occurence, but okay. Still, again, the problem is not mine.

            That you imagine I have a problem with something I called understandable is also indicative — of your acumen, in this case.

            Haha. Because you think I can’t notice condescension? Please.

            Regarding my flag, it concerned your comment and its implications rather than the subject at hand — not that I am surprised you are befuddled as to “what the fuck” it meant.

            (It was about the conversation, not about the topic at hand)

            Oh bollocks, John. It had nothing to do with that. It’s just that you have a conversational tic where you have to tack [meta] in every other comment you make. It’s kind of sad, really.

            PS I note that, though Tauriq wrote “Muslim”, you read “Arab”.

            Errr. No. That was a deliberate choice. If you had read my comments, you’d notice a theme where I state that (and I’m repeating myself again) I don’t care if people are uncomfortable around me. That is *their* problem. Just like it’s *their* problem if they’re uncomfortable around Arabs at airports, just because the stereotype is that Arabs are more likely to be terrorists. I know very well that Muslims can be any ethnicity, and that terrorists can be any ethnicity. I’m just making a point. Is that also indicative? Asshole?

          • John Morales says

            I am saying it shouldn’t fall to the accused to prove they’re not a threat (and personally think people who think they *should* can go fuck themselves) and you have a problem with this?

            That you imagine someone being unnerved by men in certain situations is tantamount to that someone accusing those men of being a threat is your own conceit, and not something expressed in the OP.

            Isn’t it? So when he begins by saying that he understands women being “unnerved” by him if they walk along the same dark alley, that’s not something expressed in the OP? And if not a threat, then what is it?

            Again: that anyone is “accused” is your own conceit.

            I’m just making a point. Is that also indicative? Asshole?

            Blusterer.

  15. James Willmott says

    “make sure you’re “non-threatening” to a woman walking down the same dark alley, JUST BECAUSE it’s a woman.”

    I make myself non-threatening to a woman when we pass at night ( cross the road, smile and acknowledge etc. ) because I’m sympathetic to her feelings and I don’t WANT her to feel afraid. Nothing to do with her gender, I do it to anyone I might appear threatening to.

    “If people are uncomfortable, women in this case,… that’s *their* problem.”

    So you just don’t care how other people feel, is that it? Did you ever wonder how your diminished capacity for empathy came about? :)

      • Foible says

        I’m not James but I cross the street at night for women and not for men. (When I can tell the difference in the dark at a distance.) I do not want to possibly offend a man or give the wrong signals. What message am I giving a member of a minority group if I put a whole road between us? There is already an etiquette in the US culture for such interactions: I’ll follow the “I’m harmless” script (Brief acknowledgement with a smile, then shift my attention elsewhere to indicate I’m not forcing interaction.) and continue on my way, treating the person as an equal and not a target or threat. My neighborhood is safe at night, otherwise I wouldn’t walk there. I want to as many people as possible to know this and act on it, not avoid each other.

        I realize I am being sexist here and treating men and women differently but in this case I’m OK with it. Well, not entirely OK but I don’t have a better solution. The part that irks me is that I’m not treating women equally, I am presuming a power disparity and preemptively avoiding the situation. There is an arrogance on my part to assume the woman is nervous because of me, for all I know she’s worried about where to dump my body after she tasers me into unconsciousness. Statistically she has a lot more to fear from me than I do from her so I play the odds and give her space. I just wish everyone could feel safe without these games.

    • Jackie: ruining feminism one fabulous accessory at a time says

      He only doesn’t care if the person is merely a woman. This dude has some serious issues with women.

      • prodegtion says

        Feminists are completely fucking delusional. Everyone hates women according to them. There’s no point trying to reason with you. You’re just insane.

  16. drken says

    I don’t want anybody to feel uncomfortable or fearful around me but that’s because I’m polite. Why would I want to scare somebody who’s not a threat? But, all I can do is not do anything that would make her feel any more threatened than she already is. That’s just basic courtesy, anything else is being an asshole. If she’s scared of me, I’m not happy about it, but I can’t take it personally. She’s scared of men in dark alleys because she’s been taught that rape is committed by strange men in dark alleys. It’s not because she’s a misandrist who needs to be put straight. At least as far as I know. Sadly, she’s much more likely to be raped by someone she knows. So, am I angry about this? Yes, I’m angry at the society that tells her to be fearful of somebody who’s less of of threat to her than somebody she considers a friend. I’m angry at a society that holds as a basic truth that an aroused man is no longer responsible for his actions, therefore placing the responsibility on women to avoid doing anything that might make us feel entitled to sex. She’s the least of my worries.

    • prodegtion says

      Society doesn’t teach that an aroused man is not responsible for his actions. This goes back to the difference between rights and courtesy. A man is not entitled to have sex with a woman; a woman is not obligated to have sex with a man. However, it does make her an asshole if she deliberately chooses not to, and she has no right not to be made ashamed for it.

      • FloraPoste says

        a woman is not obligated to have sex with a man. However, it does make her an asshole if she deliberately chooses not to, and she has no right not to be made ashamed for it.

        wtf did I just read?

        • Tauriq Moosa says

          A reminder of women’s place apparently. I’m not exactly sure what she has “no right” to? Ashamed of what? I don’t know. That she didn’t sleep with a man?

          • prodegtion says

            She has no right to be immune from scorn if she refuses to have sex with someone who requests the favor.

        • says

          Same guy further up is saying it’s “feminist dogma” that ppl like him are more likely to rape just because of their abhorrent views about women’s sexuality … Regardless of the mountain of evidence that they are more likely to rape he is trying to demonstrate why it’s a pretty obvious conclusion single handedly.

      • Beaker says

        And these are exactly the attitudes that research shows are strongly correlated to rape.

        People, both men and women, have every right to stop sex at the point where they are no longer comfortable with it, no matter the time, place or circumstance. If they do so, they are not assholes, and nobody has the right to shame them in any way shape or form. You are not entitled to another person’s body.

        Why anyone should even point that out to you is a mystery to me.

        • prodegtion says

          Did you not read what I wrote? I just said that you are not entitled to a woman’s body, and that people have a right to refuse to have sex with someone. But the fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean they are immune from being criticized or ashamed for doing it. You have the right to be an asshole. You have the right to refuse to have sex with someone, but it does make you an asshole, and we have the right to point that out.

          • Beaker says

            Refusing to have sex with someone does not make you an asshole. Why do people have to point that out to you?

          • anne mariehovgaard says

            Thank you for making it so crystal clear what sort of person you are. Might I suggest changing your avatar to a mug shot of yourself, so those unlucky enough to run into you in person don’t run the risk of mistaking you for a decent human being?

          • Tauriq Moosa says

            Why do you keep saying “right”? If someone has the “right to” call me an asshole, I have the “right” to combat that.

            The way you’re phrasing it also makes it seem like you’re contradicting yourself: you say people aren’t entitled to a woman’s body but then you say it’s fine to point out women are asshole’s for refusing sex. How can you hold those two positions at the same time?

          • prodegtion says

            Beaker:
            Yes it does. If you don’t think so, that’s fine, but you are not going to change my mind or my behavior.

            Tauriq:
            How are those two positions in any way inconsistent? Or is this projection of your religion? What dogmatists don’t seem to understand, is that you can support someone’s right to engage in a behavior even if you disagree with that behavior.

          • John Morales says

            prodegtion:

            What dogmatists don’t seem to understand, is that you can support someone’s right to engage in a behavior even if you disagree with that behavior.

            This is remarkably obtuse; scorning someone for some behaviour is clearly not supporting someone’s right to engage in that behavior — at best, it’s to grudgingly accept their right to it.

  17. Rik Aguilera says

    A man has no obligation to go out of his way to make a woman feel comfortable and any justifications to justify this obligation are sexist and bigoted. Statistically speaking more men then women are the victims of street violence and rape is more common amongst people you know then strangers lurking around a dark alley. If a woman is fearful of a man then quite simply put that is a problem she has to sort out, but a man does not need to go out of how way to address her own unfounded insecurity…it’s insane some people think a woman is entitled to such a thing.

    Men now have to prove to women they aren’t criminals…tell me that isn’t the essence of sexism?

  18. Tauriq Moosa says

    @#157 Rik Aguilera

    >> “A man has no obligation to go out of his way to make a woman feel comfortable”

    You’re also under no “obligation” to donate to charity, be polite, etc., but obligation is not the only or sufficient basis for a moral action.

    >> “any justifications to justify this obligation are sexist and bigoted”

    Broad claim indicating you view any argument that attempts justification as sexist; no nuance involved or a possibility there might be a few in some possible scenario indicate a limited engagement or interest. That’s not helpful when attempting moral reflection. You can’t know all the scenarios with god-like certainty.

    >> “Statistically speaking more men then women are the victims of street violence”

    And?

    Also are these men being attacked by large numbers of women?

    >> “rape is more common amongst people you know then strangers lurking around a dark alley.”

    The use of an “alley” was to make a broader claim; as I said: “The dark alley is representative of wider environments”. I didn’t make any stranger rape claims; I focused on sex of perpetrators of crimes toward women.

    >> “If a woman is fearful of a man then quite simply put that is a problem she has to sort out”

    She should just “get over it”, right? Since you don’t care for nuance, I suppose all women should always just get over it and never have any reason, at all, forever, to have a fear of men?

    >> “a man does not need to go out of how way to address her own unfounded insecurity”

    Again: I’m impressed that you know every women’s insecurity is unfounded. Please can I have your magic crystal ball when you’re done?

    >> “it’s insane some people think a woman is entitled to such a thing.”

    Insane? Your certainty is feeding your hyperbole.

    >> “Men now have to prove to women they aren’t criminals”

    No: Men can attempt a minor, non-invasive form of behaviour to try be better people. If trying to be a better person means disproving your criminal-status for you, then I’m not sure we can have a conversation.

    >> “tell me that isn’t the essence of sexism?”

    Unless there are some self-proclaimed feminists holding a gun to my head that I’m forgetting, this is entirely my choice and I’ve offered my reasons for that choice. You can refuse it if you wish. Sexism isn’t something you can choose to refuse: it exists and is pernicious and destroys. This is an attempt to respond to existing sexism, not to bow to it.

    But again: nuance is needed that your proclamations of “any justifications … is sexist” and things being “insane” probably won’t allow for.

    You have made a lot of assertions without telling me why I’m wrong: you’ve simply declared it sexist and expect me to agree. I see no reason to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>