Things not to do when waiting in line

[Content note: violation of personal boundaries, also foul language]

Dear denizens of the internet,

In light of an incident which happened to me when waiting for a table in a restaurant tonight, I'd like to give everyone who needs it a not so gentle reminder of waiting in line etiquette.

If you are waiting in line for something, and there is a woman, who is reading something on her phone while waiting in the same line as you, do not go put your arm around her and ask her if you can watch porn with her on her phone.

Now I know this might seem like common sense, but if you're unsure of why you shouldn't do that, it's because you come off as a creepy fuckwad who is invading her personal space. You will be setting off a million red flags in her brain which are there to help her avoid entitled assholes who are dangerous to be around. Even if you don't think you're dangerous, that's still what will be happening, because she can't read your mind. She gets to decide what sort of behaviour seems dangerous to her, not you. Also, even if you are "just trying to be friendly" by doing such a thing, and you can't see that you're being incredibly intrusive and rude, you're an idiot. If you can, and you don't care, then by gods you're a bigger jerkface than anyone could have predicted.

If you can't think of other things to do while you're waiting in line, try checking your own phone. Or talking to the group of friends you're with. Or staring at the ceiling. Or attempting to start a polite conversation that isn't about a sexually charged subject with a stranger. Or anything else that doesn't involve inserting yourself into somebody else's personal space without their permission.

If you do somehow find yourself in the embarrassing situation of having already put your arm around a woman who is a stranger to you, and she says "don't touch me", one thing you absolutely do not do is direct your apology to another man who happens to be standing near her. Most especially you do not apologise for "stepping on his toes".

I would have thought that this seems like common sense, but if somebody says to you "don't touch me", you generally apologise to the person you touched. There isn't anyone else to apologise to, since you are have invaded that person's boundaries, and nobody else's. A woman is not the property of her male partner or father, so you are not breaching any of their boundaries by touching her without their permission. A woman who goes out in public without her (male) partner or her father is not "free game to whatever to with impunity because she's out without an owner", because she owns herself. I really shouldn't have to remind anybody of this, but pre-school 101 still applies: keep your hands to yourself.

If somehow you're managed to invade a woman's personal space, and then apologise to the wrong person, and she and the group of people she's with get angry at you, you should know that "I was just trying to be friendly" and "I was just joking around" are not justifications for your behaviour. There is no justification. You don't get to touch people if they don't want it. That goes for everyone. If somehow you've got this far into the situation, and you're still trying to defend yourself, all I can say is "dig up, fool!". You've just perpetuated a nasty bit of retrograde sexism and rape culture which claims that women do not own their own bodies. You should be ashamed of yourself.

A response

Receive article suggestion from university friend that I "might find interesting" (read infuriating), and much typing is done in procrastination.

Article: http://postmasculine.com/why-im-not-a-feminist 

(Yeah, I didn't think it was going to be good, but I wanted to respond)

---

So what I'm getting from that article is

"citation needed on your rape statistic [1]",

"I call bullshit on genetic differences in spatial reasoning and emotional intelligence, that's learned behaviour (so very difficult to measure a genetic effect), and citation needed",

"Good, you're a nice guy who doesn't rape people. Have a cookie.",

"I call bullshit on rape being universally condemned, for sure it is in name, but actions speak louder than words. [2]. Also you just described rape culture in your refutation of it existence. Whoops!",

"feminism has accomplished all it's goals? ROFL NO, explain the dearth of women in power in the upper levels of politics, business, etc, and excluding women who take time off to be a mother doesn't correct anything, why aren't men doing that too? Why is it that women on average still have a much smaller economic power than men?",

"wait, we have full reproductive rights? I guess the odious Right to Life [sic] group isn't actually trying to take away women's right to their own body or anything, also like, everything that's happening in American politics right now, and the 7-year court case the Right to Life [sic] group has been having with the NZ justice system to try and take away our rights to control our own body. Also New Zealand's abortion law is still in the crimes act. Yes, there's clearly not any need to advocate for reproductive rights anywhere in the west any more [3]",

"LOL you think the current justice system actually deals with rape well. Yes, for all other crimes it's debated that it wasn't a crime at all because of your past actions. Like, you gave away a present once, that means that you didn't get robbed, you just gave the robber a gift! LOL of course that doesn't happen", and

"I think you don't understand the point of the Slut Walk. It protests the idea that women "deserve" rape if they wear "provocative" clothing, which is something you claim to support",




TL;DR: The article seems not very well informed, even though I'll admit that it is better than most things that come out of the "manosphere". Comment #3 by Paul has some good points, and later Mark Neil also makes an informative comment.




[1] If you want some real statistics on rape, it's estimated at 18%, not 8%, using a very narrow definition of rape (this number only includes rapes by force or impairment using substances. Rape via coercion is listed separately at 13%). (This is from a US perspective, but the culture there is not so dissimilar from here). This is from 2010 results of the The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey from the US Center for Disease Control (pdf):http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Executive_Summary-a.pdf

Fact sheet about victims and perpetrators of rape and sexual assault from the University of Massachusetts (pdf):http://www2.binghamton.edu/counseling/documents/RAPE_FACT_SHEET1.pdf


[2] You know, I'd type it all out and add more references, but Melissa McEwan's done it for me.http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

Also, even if rape weren't so common in western society, the way it's held over women to generate fear would be a problem in itself. See this thread for some examples of how the threat of rape curtails women's daily movements:http://www.shakesville.com/2008/10/feminism-101.html


[3] Read any news relating to the American Republican Party, and their promises to "overturn abortion" and "fight contraception" and their all-male panel on contraception.

http://www.shakesville.com/2012/02/year-2012.html

http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/

http://www.shakesville.com/2012/03/number-of-day_28.html

http://floridaindependent.com/75483/rick-scott-rape-crisis-centers

Right to Life [sic] (RTL) v Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) court case:

http://alranz.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/abortion-access-back-in-the-dock-part-2/

Tone arguments

I've been considering whether or not I should post this, because the person it concerns knows of this existence of this blog, but what the hell. The person this post concerns has probably already written me off as some kind of crazy bitch who is dismissing him because he's a man, rather than disagreeing with him over the relevance of a particular type of argument in a discussion. And for the record, I absolutely believe that men should be involved in discussions of feminism. They just need to actually listen to what women are saying before they speak. Yeesh.

----

[This post contains sarcasm]

I was having a bit of a discussion about this post with some people on Facebook, until one guy I know decided to tell us all about how he thought the way the post was written was wrong. In his opinion, this post was written in a way which will "make guys become angry and spiteful". Apparently "it's such a shame she "just" wrote a rant post when she has "such a large" audience".

Oh my, haven't we heard that one before. Time to invoke the spoiling the afternoon part of the Terrible Bargain, and see what happens?

I gave him the 2-second 101 "it's not about you or "the guys", and she can write however she damn well pleases because there will always be somebody who gets pissed off. I ask him to please not derail my discussion.

Too late. Totally unpredictably, he gets defensive and escalates his derail.

Apparently, he's "simply" discussing how the blog "could have been better", and I'm derailing "his" discussion by saying "please don't do that".  Apparently there's no "big picture" where he's trying to derail "the system".

What is this I don't even ...?

Better for whom? Him? Because well... the author of the post obviously knows who he is and how to write in a way that will make him happy. Oh. Whose wall are we having this discussion on again? There's no big picture where women's opinions are often dismissed because they're too angry, too nice, too emotional, too detached, too simplistic, too complicated... really?

Apparently now I'm dismissing his opinion by telling him to stay on topic or I will remove his comments. Apparently I should let discussions on my facebook wall go on whatever tangent they go, regardless of whether I like where it's going. Yes, his derail is now 100% complete.

Welcome to The Tone Argument 101, posted on my wall with a tag for each of the derailer and his supporters (people who "liked" his posts). Of course, this is the opportune time to make a new tone argument; about how he think's I've been too harsh on him because he's a man (I asked him to check his privilege when talking about women's writing) and wah wah wah, it's all about him and his hurt feelings and how he's a feminist so I should shut up and listen to him.

Yes, that's totally how it works. Oh wait. No it isn't. In the slightest.

I know someone who doesn't know how to stop digging. Because. Because.

He has a problem when people want to end an argument "suddenly". Apparently I shouldn't direct comments on my facebook wall, and let people go off on whatever tangent they like. And wah wah wah, yes, it's still about how I'm derailing him, in a conversation I started on my wall. And about how "I'm right and he's wrong". And asking me if he should "just stop talking about feminism and sexism and homophobia and racism" etc and make all topics taboo". (As if! But you should listen to women, and homosexual people, and people of colour when you do talk about those things!)

Yeahhhhh.

Apparently I'm the one being angry and defensive. All for saying "please don't do that".

Yikes.

I'm a what?

Before I begin this post, I would like to briefly state that I have never formally studied feminist theory or the social sciences beyond the compulsory courses I did in early high school. If something is grossly wrong (which I hope is not the case), I will welcome well-reasoned corrections (i.e. don't just tell me I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong).

There has been a lot of talk lately of a certain author of a comic called Dilbert, who goes by the name Scott Adams. This Adams recently wrote a blog post, on the request of his readers, about a concept called Mens' Rights. Unfortunately, he did it in a way which was insulting to pretty much all of humanity, and unsurprisingly triggered a shitstorm. From what I can tell, some people have been nasty to Adams in return, rather than refuting the many incorrect "facts" which he presents. I personally don't think he necessarily deserves to be called names for believing commonly believed stereotypes about men and women, even though his use of said stereotypes is odious. That being said, his childish copy-paste reaction on a number of feminist blogs which critique the original post, and his blanket dismissal of other people's feelings and opinions on the matter deserve the utmost contempt.

Adams is of the opinion that his original blog post mocks the "Mens' Rights Activists" (hereafter referred to as MRAs). And so it does, to some extent. By calling them "pussies" and not saving their energy for more important battles. And then he justifies this by suggesting that you deal with women in the same way you would a petulant child demanding candy or a flailing mentally disabled person who hit you in the face. He says that he's not comparing these groups of people, but then compares them again, repeating that you should deal with them in "disturbingly similar" manners, justified by saying that you should only fight in battles you know you're going to win.

Er. Pardon me, Scott Adams. This paints women as irrational beings which men can only deal with by ignoring as much as possible. At risk of being dismissed by critics for being hysterical, this shit really pisses me off.

Women are adults, and deserve equal treatment with other adults in the human race. Treating women like children because "it's just easier that way" is a kind of cop-out, don't you think? I don't have any studies, but I would think that treating women like the fully rational beings they are would actually be easier for everyone - they would no longer have to deal with the frustration of constantly being reminded that they are considered less-than because of circumstances they have no control over, and everyone would be less likely to need to deal with the messed up relationships which result from systemic power imbalances like this.

Let me re-finish Scott Adams' statement on battles.

"If a woman tells you that she's earning 80c to your dollar, you don't argue with her." You do something about it. You don't save your energy for more important battles, because this one is important (and contrary to popular belief, you can care about multiple issues concurrently). That may not be the path of least resistance, because social change is difficult. But instead of just resignedly saying "life is unfair", you can vote for political parties which prioritise gender equality. You can excise language which uses the feminine as an insult from your vocabulary (because a girl being called "such a girl" shouldn't be insulting!). You can support girls in pursuing careers traditionally reserved for men (which are also better paid). You can support equalising the pay rates of traditionally "masculine" and "feminine" professions (because teachers are surely as important as lawyers). You can support women you know in negotiating better pay or getting promoted, and you can do equal work in your home so the women in your family don't take on a "second shift" which might prevent them from committing to their outside employment fully.

Even if the beginning of Adams' original post is ignored, on the grounds that it is the opinions of the MRAs he's mocking (and in the interest of making this post slightly shorter), not only does the original post insult women, it also insults men. Saying that men are apathetic, brow-beaten and constantly desirous of sex is pretty insulting to them. I, for one, know that they are certainly capable of more. That's not to say that there aren't real societal problems which men also need to navigate - such as uneven prison sentencing, toxic definitions of masculinity and parental rights - but Adams' post manages to trivialise those issues as well, using examples like who gets served first at a restaurant or opening jars.


Now that I've done an incomplete analysis of Adams' original post, lets move onto his response to the responses his first post got from around the internet.

He begins by explaining how his post was supposed to be funny, and how everyone seems to be worried about issues he doesn't think are important. Next he claims that people were "changing its context" by taking it too seriously, and how he didn't realise how seriously people would take it. He continues by dismissing everyone who was offended by it as excessively "emotional" and accusing feminist bloggers of being combative ("the with us or against us instinct took over"), and finishes off by dismissing people who were offended by it as being merely offended "by their interpretation" of it.

I'm pretty sure his post is essentially based on excerpts from derailing for dummies 101 - let me recap.

It was just a joke on the internet!
I made it because I was sick of all these people complaining about how they've been discriminated against in some way ("I'm been experiencing a wicked case of "whiner fatigue."")
Don't you have more important things to worry about ("THOSE are problems. Your thing: Not so much.")

Adams clearly has a low opinion of people's ability to change their opinion on things/analyse to their environments ("I don't believe humans can be influenced by exposure to better arguments") - maybe he's projecting - so he claims he's just presenting a "different" opinion, since exposure to a broad range of ideas is supposed to be good for you. See also "But being offended is good for you!".

People dissected the post and analysed it - and in doing this they apparently inflated how clever they were - see "You're being too intellectual/not intellectual enough" ("...crowed that I don't understand how the Internet worked, I would politely suggest that perhaps I do.") He claims that they wouldn't be able to understand the post because their analysis of it "changed the context", by which I suppose he means "you're interrogating from the wrong perspective".

He also protests his being labelled an asshole, and in the same sentence accuses people (feminists?) of stereotyping all men as such ("I was presumed an enemy and labeled a misogynist. I was also labeled an asshole, which I have come to understand is a synonym for male") - see also "But I'm not like that, stop stereotyping!".

He characterises all the responses around the original post as people getting "excited" about it, and states the oft-repeated "fact" that emotions destroy rationality. See "You're being over emotional" and "You've lost your temper so I don't have to listen to you". I suppose he wouldn't agree with me in my belief directed emotion is actually conducive to motivating one to change one's circumstances.

Finally, he repeats his assertion that men are apathetic except when it comes to dealing with each other  (wtf?), uses the feminine as an insult (again!), and apologises without actually apologising - he apologises on behalf of women for getting their own interpretation of his post wrong (wtf), and even manages to get another little jibe in at feminists in the last sentence ("even feminists..."?).


As far as I can tell, both posts are rehashing some pretty insulting existing stereotypes about men and women, and the second was "la la la I'm putting my fingers in my ears and I'm not listening to other people telling me that I'm wrong and I'm certainly not apologising to you people for being offensive even though I know I was being offensive". I'm hearing a man who is both aware that he is not engaging with his critics, and is also unwilling to engage.