Good for these women taking steps to defend themselves. The crazy part of this article are the stats cited from the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights
( Read more... )
a) There is a woman who teaches kendo at a dojo in downtown providence. Honestly, just watching her teaching it was one of the most awe-inspiring things I've ever seen.
b) The issue of harassment in the military is a big one. Our country's sexual hangups seem to be multiplied a thousand-fold due to the rigid 'discipline' structures combined with the expected ostracism of anyone who undermines - or perhaps just points the injustices in - the social order.
c) My roommates are not comfortable with most clubs in DC because of the grabby-ness. Even if one out of a hundred (guys) thinks it's ok to go around grabbing, you're still basically going to be grabbed constantly. That said, I don't know that you can pass much judgment on people who were brought up to believe that sort of behavior is socially correct any more than you can pass judgment on people who see it and don't do anything, or tacitly encourage it. It's not hard to come to the conclusion, in our society - or apparently, others - that you do want to keep swinging for the fences. Just like in Starcraft, throughput is often more 'effective' than quality.
As far as c goes, I sort of agree and sort of don't. I think many cultures--including ours--need to come down a *lot* more harshly on unwanted advances. (Our culture, in particular, needs to stop casting the sort of desperate stalky behavior typical of a leg-humping shi tzu as "romantic", and to stop casting needy entitlement bitches as "Nice Guys", my God, q.v. relevant XKCD comic.) However, since there are examples of people who stand up to their cultural standards and say "hey, this is wrong," I do fault people who cheerfully go along with the wrongness because it's to their advantage, even if it does work sometimes. Spamming works too, and most people agree that spammers are slime.
I am, admittedly, a world of cranky where this is concerned.
While in general I agree with all that, I also think it's an impractical stance from a diplomatic/negotiation point of view. 99.9% of the people I know are basically insecure. I can think of, maybe, two people who I'd be confident are always acting out of a place of confidence rather than a mix of desperate wants and crippling fears. Assuming that holds for the general populace, I don't see it as reasonable to expect your average male to give up all control in social situations.
And, I think, for most people that is what it comes down to. Harassing someone gives you a certain amount of control over a situation - yes, it's the equivalent of making fun of someone because you secretly like them, but who hasn't been there? It's fronting behavior.
It's unreasonable to demand that all people either act totally mature or not interact. Humans will choose to interact badly rather than to not interact, being social creatures. In a situation that is bent largely towards have social interactions with an open group of people, you have to assume that you're going to get the entire spectrum of behavior. But note that 'average' behavior (in America, anyway) varies based on the context. Grabbing someone in Target is a way bigger deal than doing so in a club; right or wrong, there is some expectation in the latter location that that is a possibility, and that it might be ok.
Now, any given person is well within their rights to respond only negatively to that behavior, even (especially?) in a club, but I'm not sure that it's useful to carry it further than that, unless tangible harm is being done. Trying to make someone else act in a particular way is always far more problematic than choosing a particular way to act yourself.
(I also have the impulse to argue that the behavior is actually the instantiation of a meta-behavior in the pursuit of social learning, but I should rein in my post.)
Anyway, I do think that you're correct in citing that cultural expressions of stalking as appropriate is problematic. But, then, I don't believe in either 'One True Love' or 'Love at First Sight' or the rest of that; I really think that any of that is learned behavior, and that relationships can either be enslaved to chemical interactions in your brain or learned and practiced like, say, you would the piano. Alright, now I'm really tangent-ing.
Well, it's worth keeping in mind that I, as usual, am coming at this less from a diplomatic/negotiation point of view as from a...reaction/penalty point of view? I'm not really interested in sensitively enlightening guys who grab me in clubs, poke me in the head when I'm not paying sufficient attention to THEMOMG, or come up and try to grind with me after I've repeatedly moved away. If they're that big a bundle of neurosis and suck, they've pretty much failed beyond any interest I have in dealing with them.
Granted, this all ends up in what you--I think--mean by "respond negatively"--in the worst case, I wuss out and just keep dodging them, in the best I tell Greasy McSkeeze to GET YOUR HAND OFF MY ASS AND DIE IN A FIRE, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, DID YOU EAT LEAD PANCAKES GROWING UP? at about that tone of voice. (And I should really do that one more often, because Greasy McSkeeze, as described above, Does Not Take Hints.) I mean, I *expect* GMS to show up at clubs, and I don't feel surprised when he does...but he still sucks. I'm not sure if stating "guys who do this suck" is what you mean by carrying it further or trying to make someone else act in a particular way.
I guess what it comes down to for me is this: I don't owe GMS anything. Not only do I not owe him sex, ego-boosting, or one second of my time, I also don't owe him a life free of embarrassment, judgment, or black eyes. If he chooses to interact badly for his own pleasure rather than learning to interact well or realizing that he's bothering people and going the fuck away...yeah, he's made of lame. In an open group like a club, I *do* expect to encounter some people that are made of lame, but my expecting it doesn't change their composition, you know?
I agree with your tangent, actually: while romantic hyperbole is fine, if someone uses those concepts seriously, I have more trouble *taking* them seriously, in general. Also, "One True Love" makes me think of a creepy melding of Highlander with some sort of romance anime.
Also, it's worth noting that, if 99.9% percent of us are basically insecure (which I sort of agree with) and we still manage to act like decent people most of the time, that doesn't really give That Guy a lot of excuse for being That Guy.
I mean, we know a lot of the same crowd. Presumably a fair amount of the guys in that crowd are insecure, as you mention--and, to the best of my knowledge, none of them go around grabbing women in clubs. If they can avoid it, That Guy can stop doing it.
Well, as to that, I think everyone displays their malfunctions in different ways. For instance, I relentlessly troll forums and pick fights for only marginally good reasons. ;) I guess no one talked to me as a child, and I fear deep down I have nothing to say...
Still, even if many guys are insecure, only some of those are insecure and desperate or horny at any given time. And of those, some have already found polite behaviors to use under those conditions. Plus, there is the whole difference between 'polite' and 'awesome'; you know plenty of people who obsess way too easily, for instance. It's not 'grabbing' but it's also not exactly 'awesome' behavior.
For what it's worth, I think most males (and I'm being entirely heteronormative here, because it's what I can speak to) respect women in the abstract, and specific women they know and interact with. But I also think that men, like women, are emotional first, and that means that they generally find some romantic context in which they are jackasses. When you 'grow up', I think (hope?), you figure out ways to avoid that or block out the chances of getting into those situations.
Which is to say that That Guy is, in fact, all over the place, he's just grabbing in one case, being overbearing in another, being overly self-involved in another, preying on the emotionally vulnerable in yet another, stalking in yet another, constantly moping at you in another, hiding in his house in another (which, granted, doesn't affect you...), sleeping around in another, having overwrought fights in another, being totally melodramatic in another, etc.
At the same time That Guy is just like Every Other Guy - that is nice, sweet, having good points, looking out for his partner, being respectful, and so on.
It's really easy to say 'That Guy can not grab because other Guys figure out how to'. But we have things that it is really hard to figure out how to. Some people also know how to have good handwriting, but I've still got crappy handwriting. There is no reason to suspect that the skill of being socially adept in any one given situation is as easily learned by everyone. Given that, That Guy is bound to come up in the context of club ass-grabbing.
Naturally, you owe that dude nada, any more than you'd owe someone something who you were in a relationship with but could not, for the love of god, pick up after himself. Whether you put up with that has more to do with you than with them. All of us have tolerance for some sort of bullshit or malfunction. Arguably, we could all have as much tolerance as we expect social adeptness. Maybe this is all just a long-winded way of saying that ya gotta look inside for the answers, and that it's a total and utter waste of time, energy and personal potential to indict someone else for such issues. That said, I'm one to talk. ;)
All that also doesn't address what such thinking does to alter the actual approach in those situations; as to that, I'm probably not the best person to say. My original point re:Diplomacy/Negotiation is simply that stonewalling is often not the best way to encourage someone to act in the manner in which you desire. The Stab, The Chainsaw, The Dead Line; they all have their uses, and it's Sekrit Lore to use them effectively. Still, likely a skill worth pursuing over, say, just stating the need for losers to fuck off and die. Cus they won't. By the same token, I'd like to live in a world where no one grafts money from the government, but I don't believe for a second that will happen; the proper response is oversight and transparency in government so that the system doesn't encourage it. But the change there doesn't have to do with the would-be thieves.
Whereas I use forum arguments as a way to procrastinate when I don't know what the hell to do with this next chapter. ;)
In a way, you put your finger on it with the divide between "polite" and "awesome": I don't expect awesome from everyone and I don't think less of people for not being awesome. I'm not. However, I think there's a level that it's reasonable to expect from adults: do not go to the bathroom outside of designated bathroom areas, wear pants if you go out of the house*, do not grab people. If someone can't follow these rules, they're not a functioning adult; if someone *won't* follow these rules, they're an entitled dicksmack.
And while the mopey/promiscuous/melodramatic version of That Guy might be an okay friend and have good points (for certain values of mopey/promiscuous/melodramatic, because I think we all know how I feel about OOtP Harry Potter), the version who refuses to follow basic social rules...doesn't, in my opinion. Or rather, the bad points obscure any good points he might have, and as long as he has the bad ones, I don't care if he's nice to his dog.
As someone who also sucks at handwriting (it's an Internet Generation thing, I think), among other things, I don't think it's the same thing. Handwriting, racecar driving, etc. are active skills. You have to be *doing* something, and you have to be doing it the right way. Getting a woman's attention smoothly would be the equivalent, I think, and I am (generally) more forgiving of someone who can't do it. Not grabbing women just requires...not grabbing. It's not a skill. You just...don't touch them.
Which is one of the reasons I think there's a difference in scale between "hey, this guy isn't great at showing up places on time" or "this guy tends to get crushes at the drop of a hat" and "this guy grabs women in clubs". It doesn't take a lot of physical or emotional training to just...not grab people...so if a guy does it, he thinks it's OK to do it. And thus I hate him, whereas Guy Who's Always Getting Crushes might make me roll my eyes, but he doesn't inspire sheer ball-kicking rage.
it's a total and utter waste of time, energy and personal potential to indict someone else for such issues.
The waste of time argument doesn't really work for me. For one thing, I like indicting people when they suck. I like going on Sweet Baby Moses, What The Hell Is Wrong With You? rants. It's sort of a hobby for me. :) For another...well, people waste time and energy on stuff. It's arguably what makes us people, and it's certainly why we have a successful video game industry. I mean, before I wrote this post? I spent three hours trying to get my little guy in Psychonauts (awesome game, BTW) to levitate up a trail of bubbles. At least, here, there's a possibility that potential Greasy McSkeezebags will see my seething hatred and realize there's something wrong with them.
My original point re:Diplomacy/Negotiation is simply that stonewalling is often not the best way to encourage someone to act in the manner in which you desire. The Stab, The Chainsaw, The Dead Line; they all have their uses, and it's Sekrit Lore to use them effectively. Still, likely a skill worth pursuing over, say, just stating the need for losers to fuck off and die.
See, if we're talking about in real life? No. Because if I try to negotiate with GMS or thoughtfully and calmly explain that I understand him but this is where I'm coming from, he's going to take that as a sign that he stands a chance, and he's going to keep bothering me. If I yell at him or throw a drink in his face, odds are he'll at least stop bugging me, and there's an outside chance that he might be embarrassed enough to rethink what passes for his life.
On LJ, perhaps. But LJ is also sort of a place *for* rants about how XYZ needs to fuck off and die. I think that sympathy for these people just feeds into their entitlement complex, but even if that's not true, I think there's a place in the world for saying both "Here's what we should do about this," and "ARGH THIS SUCKS AND SO DO YOU."
Oversight and transparency? Yes. Definitely. But that doesn't make it wrong to be angry at the thieves.
"It doesn't take a lot of physical or emotional training to just...not grab people...so if a guy does it, he thinks it's OK to do it."
Yes... and I think you should consider the possibility that for a great many people it is ok. For instance; most of Egypt clearly thinks this is ok. Given that, and given it's entirely your place to pass judgment on whether such people are right, the thing that has to be done is to take into account whether they think it's right, and how justified they are in thinking that. Along the same lines of the principle that you can't really hold a child responsible for putting colors in with the whites if they've only rarely done laundry before.
For instance, some guys actively like how women are made uncomfortable when they're grabbed. That deserves far less sympathy than the dim bulb who doesn't have a father and has only ever been around assholes who do that.
"See, if we're talking about in real life? No. Because if I try to negotiate with GMS or thoughtfully and calmly explain..."
You mistake me, miss! Calmly explaining something can be considered Negotiation, much like a panda bear can be considered a Multi-Cellular Organism. It is... but it is in no way the length and breadth of Negotiation.
All I really mean by that term is that there are two parties, with some set of resources, and some set of goals, and the result is determined by the application of negotiation; leveraging those resources to achieve your goals. Arguably, slapping Skeezy upside the head is a form of negotiation - namely an aggressive move that causes him to reconsider the priority structure of his goals. But note for someone whom 'not getting physically assaulted' or 'not getting embarrassed' are not goals, slapping them may only encourage them. Thankfully, such cases are rare.
"It doesn't take a lot of physical or emotional training to just...not grab people..."
I am not convinced of this. Most people have parents who know how to impart this lesson early - but if you don't, I think it's a hard one to learn. Just like it's hard for people who aren't held as children to learn not overvalue physical contact. Same thing with awkward political viewpoints; if you learned early that being a Republican is socially acceptable, you might have a hard time unlearning that.
One of the reasons I think that, though, is because stories Minervaish has told me about how her grandparents got together - and how people of my parents generation look at 'Mad Men' and say 'Yup, that's pretty much how it was. Rampant sexism and ass-grabbing.' I think it could very easily be harder to learn than many other 'social skills'. I think it also largely depends on the sort of person you're regularly exposed to, which brings me to my final point...
"the version who refuses to follow basic social rules...doesn't [have good points]."
Except that 'not being mopey' is a basic social rule, in many cultures. Showing up on time is a basic social rule. Not burdening others with your emotional baggage without explicit invitation is a basic social rule. Cleaning up after yourself is a basic social rule. In fact, I'd much rather be grabbed regularly (even in a physically intimidating sense) than continue to witness case after case of people not picking up after themselves. It's rude - and I think as the world gets more crowded more rude than not keeping your hands to yourself. So I think that categorizing the one rule that you yourself find more bothersome as clearly more basic, and therefore more indictable, is to my mind a bit hypocritical. Which I know you're ok with. ;)
Shorter reply this time, 'cause I have to head off to the gym: I actually think that picking up after yourself *is* a pretty basic social rule, when you're talking about a space you're sharing with other people. Seriously. You do not want to get me started on Guy Who Can't Fucking Take Out the Trash, Especially After His Weekend Pot-Inspired Tunafest, BRENDAN, YOU GLUE-SNIFFING MOTHERFUCKER, because I'll be here all night and things around me may start to spontaneously combust. Likewise, I don't think very much of people who are publicly and intrusively mopey, or who show up late to the point where it seriously inconveniences others.
Quick and dirty summation: "basic social rules" in my book come down to "don't bug other people for your own comfort or pleasure." That covers cleaning up after yourself, not groping strangers, not having sobbing hysterics in a CVS or conducting a loud breakup at 3 AM when you share an apartment, going to the bathroom in the appropriate facility, and a fair amount of other stuff. These are all on about the same level of "learn it or go the fuck away" basicness. I happen to be bitching about the groping right now, but I'm sure I've said a few things about the others from time to time. ;)
I do think that adults are responsible for learning and correcting their own social oversights and issues*, regardless of Traumatic Backstory, but I would also give a little more slack to someone who I knew was foreign to the culture. (Youngish American college-type guys? No sympathy. None.) That said, if I'm encountering Anonymous Skeezy Dude in a club, I don't know whether he's dumb or a dick, and I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But note for someone whom 'not getting physically assaulted' or 'not getting embarrassed' are not goals, slapping them may only encourage them. Thankfully, such cases are rare.
Yeah. And that's pretty much the point where I hope there are cops or a bouncer or a similar authority, because those guys are fucked up.
It may also be regional. I wonder if different parts of the country have different social/cultural standards/expectations (with outliers always possible of course). I mean a college town versus a suburb probably has different rates...but what about college towns in different regions of the U. S. Then you get into cultural differences once you open up into countries in terms of their views of appropriate behavior for men and women. The "swinging for the fences" kind of thing is also problematic in terms of literature/movies...the protagonist who is persistent to the extreme can actually be considered a "stalker", maladjusted, and inappropriate for building a functional relationship.
b) The issue of harassment in the military is a big one. Our country's sexual hangups seem to be multiplied a thousand-fold due to the rigid 'discipline' structures combined with the expected ostracism of anyone who undermines - or perhaps just points the injustices in - the social order.
c) My roommates are not comfortable with most clubs in DC because of the grabby-ness. Even if one out of a hundred (guys) thinks it's ok to go around grabbing, you're still basically going to be grabbed constantly. That said, I don't know that you can pass much judgment on people who were brought up to believe that sort of behavior is socially correct any more than you can pass judgment on people who see it and don't do anything, or tacitly encourage it. It's not hard to come to the conclusion, in our society - or apparently, others - that you do want to keep swinging for the fences. Just like in Starcraft, throughput is often more 'effective' than quality.
Reply
I am, admittedly, a world of cranky where this is concerned.
Reply
And, I think, for most people that is what it comes down to. Harassing someone gives you a certain amount of control over a situation - yes, it's the equivalent of making fun of someone because you secretly like them, but who hasn't been there? It's fronting behavior.
It's unreasonable to demand that all people either act totally mature or not interact. Humans will choose to interact badly rather than to not interact, being social creatures. In a situation that is bent largely towards have social interactions with an open group of people, you have to assume that you're going to get the entire spectrum of behavior. But note that 'average' behavior (in America, anyway) varies based on the context. Grabbing someone in Target is a way bigger deal than doing so in a club; right or wrong, there is some expectation in the latter location that that is a possibility, and that it might be ok.
Now, any given person is well within their rights to respond only negatively to that behavior, even (especially?) in a club, but I'm not sure that it's useful to carry it further than that, unless tangible harm is being done. Trying to make someone else act in a particular way is always far more problematic than choosing a particular way to act yourself.
(I also have the impulse to argue that the behavior is actually the instantiation of a meta-behavior in the pursuit of social learning, but I should rein in my post.)
Anyway, I do think that you're correct in citing that cultural expressions of stalking as appropriate is problematic. But, then, I don't believe in either 'One True Love' or 'Love at First Sight' or the rest of that; I really think that any of that is learned behavior, and that relationships can either be enslaved to chemical interactions in your brain or learned and practiced like, say, you would the piano. Alright, now I'm really tangent-ing.
Reply
Granted, this all ends up in what you--I think--mean by "respond negatively"--in the worst case, I wuss out and just keep dodging them, in the best I tell Greasy McSkeeze to GET YOUR HAND OFF MY ASS AND DIE IN A FIRE, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, DID YOU EAT LEAD PANCAKES GROWING UP? at about that tone of voice. (And I should really do that one more often, because Greasy McSkeeze, as described above, Does Not Take Hints.) I mean, I *expect* GMS to show up at clubs, and I don't feel surprised when he does...but he still sucks. I'm not sure if stating "guys who do this suck" is what you mean by carrying it further or trying to make someone else act in a particular way.
I guess what it comes down to for me is this: I don't owe GMS anything. Not only do I not owe him sex, ego-boosting, or one second of my time, I also don't owe him a life free of embarrassment, judgment, or black eyes. If he chooses to interact badly for his own pleasure rather than learning to interact well or realizing that he's bothering people and going the fuck away...yeah, he's made of lame. In an open group like a club, I *do* expect to encounter some people that are made of lame, but my expecting it doesn't change their composition, you know?
I agree with your tangent, actually: while romantic hyperbole is fine, if someone uses those concepts seriously, I have more trouble *taking* them seriously, in general. Also, "One True Love" makes me think of a creepy melding of Highlander with some sort of romance anime.
Reply
I mean, we know a lot of the same crowd. Presumably a fair amount of the guys in that crowd are insecure, as you mention--and, to the best of my knowledge, none of them go around grabbing women in clubs. If they can avoid it, That Guy can stop doing it.
Reply
Still, even if many guys are insecure, only some of those are insecure and desperate or horny at any given time. And of those, some have already found polite behaviors to use under those conditions. Plus, there is the whole difference between 'polite' and 'awesome'; you know plenty of people who obsess way too easily, for instance. It's not 'grabbing' but it's also not exactly 'awesome' behavior.
For what it's worth, I think most males (and I'm being entirely heteronormative here, because it's what I can speak to) respect women in the abstract, and specific women they know and interact with. But I also think that men, like women, are emotional first, and that means that they generally find some romantic context in which they are jackasses. When you 'grow up', I think (hope?), you figure out ways to avoid that or block out the chances of getting into those situations.
Which is to say that That Guy is, in fact, all over the place, he's just grabbing in one case, being overbearing in another, being overly self-involved in another, preying on the emotionally vulnerable in yet another, stalking in yet another, constantly moping at you in another, hiding in his house in another (which, granted, doesn't affect you...), sleeping around in another, having overwrought fights in another, being totally melodramatic in another, etc.
At the same time That Guy is just like Every Other Guy - that is nice, sweet, having good points, looking out for his partner, being respectful, and so on.
It's really easy to say 'That Guy can not grab because other Guys figure out how to'. But we have things that it is really hard to figure out how to. Some people also know how to have good handwriting, but I've still got crappy handwriting. There is no reason to suspect that the skill of being socially adept in any one given situation is as easily learned by everyone. Given that, That Guy is bound to come up in the context of club ass-grabbing.
Naturally, you owe that dude nada, any more than you'd owe someone something who you were in a relationship with but could not, for the love of god, pick up after himself. Whether you put up with that has more to do with you than with them. All of us have tolerance for some sort of bullshit or malfunction. Arguably, we could all have as much tolerance as we expect social adeptness. Maybe this is all just a long-winded way of saying that ya gotta look inside for the answers, and that it's a total and utter waste of time, energy and personal potential to indict someone else for such issues. That said, I'm one to talk. ;)
All that also doesn't address what such thinking does to alter the actual approach in those situations; as to that, I'm probably not the best person to say. My original point re:Diplomacy/Negotiation is simply that stonewalling is often not the best way to encourage someone to act in the manner in which you desire. The Stab, The Chainsaw, The Dead Line; they all have their uses, and it's Sekrit Lore to use them effectively. Still, likely a skill worth pursuing over, say, just stating the need for losers to fuck off and die. Cus they won't. By the same token, I'd like to live in a world where no one grafts money from the government, but I don't believe for a second that will happen; the proper response is oversight and transparency in government so that the system doesn't encourage it. But the change there doesn't have to do with the would-be thieves.
Reply
In a way, you put your finger on it with the divide between "polite" and "awesome": I don't expect awesome from everyone and I don't think less of people for not being awesome. I'm not. However, I think there's a level that it's reasonable to expect from adults: do not go to the bathroom outside of designated bathroom areas, wear pants if you go out of the house*, do not grab people. If someone can't follow these rules, they're not a functioning adult; if someone *won't* follow these rules, they're an entitled dicksmack.
And while the mopey/promiscuous/melodramatic version of That Guy might be an okay friend and have good points (for certain values of mopey/promiscuous/melodramatic, because I think we all know how I feel about OOtP Harry Potter), the version who refuses to follow basic social rules...doesn't, in my opinion. Or rather, the bad points obscure any good points he might have, and as long as he has the bad ones, I don't care if he's nice to his dog.
As someone who also sucks at handwriting (it's an Internet Generation thing, I think), among other things, I don't think it's the same thing. Handwriting, racecar driving, etc. are active skills. You have to be *doing* something, and you have to be doing it the right way. Getting a woman's attention smoothly would be the equivalent, I think, and I am (generally) more forgiving of someone who can't do it. Not grabbing women just requires...not grabbing. It's not a skill. You just...don't touch them.
Which is one of the reasons I think there's a difference in scale between "hey, this guy isn't great at showing up places on time" or "this guy tends to get crushes at the drop of a hat" and "this guy grabs women in clubs". It doesn't take a lot of physical or emotional training to just...not grab people...so if a guy does it, he thinks it's OK to do it. And thus I hate him, whereas Guy Who's Always Getting Crushes might make me roll my eyes, but he doesn't inspire sheer ball-kicking rage.
it's a total and utter waste of time, energy and personal potential to indict someone else for such issues.
The waste of time argument doesn't really work for me. For one thing, I like indicting people when they suck. I like going on Sweet Baby Moses, What The Hell Is Wrong With You? rants. It's sort of a hobby for me. :) For another...well, people waste time and energy on stuff. It's arguably what makes us people, and it's certainly why we have a successful video game industry. I mean, before I wrote this post? I spent three hours trying to get my little guy in Psychonauts (awesome game, BTW) to levitate up a trail of bubbles. At least, here, there's a possibility that potential Greasy McSkeezebags will see my seething hatred and realize there's something wrong with them.
My original point re:Diplomacy/Negotiation is simply that stonewalling is often not the best way to encourage someone to act in the manner in which you desire. The Stab, The Chainsaw, The Dead Line; they all have their uses, and it's Sekrit Lore to use them effectively. Still, likely a skill worth pursuing over, say, just stating the need for losers to fuck off and die.
See, if we're talking about in real life? No. Because if I try to negotiate with GMS or thoughtfully and calmly explain that I understand him but this is where I'm coming from, he's going to take that as a sign that he stands a chance, and he's going to keep bothering me. If I yell at him or throw a drink in his face, odds are he'll at least stop bugging me, and there's an outside chance that he might be embarrassed enough to rethink what passes for his life.
On LJ, perhaps. But LJ is also sort of a place *for* rants about how XYZ needs to fuck off and die. I think that sympathy for these people just feeds into their entitlement complex, but even if that's not true, I think there's a place in the world for saying both "Here's what we should do about this," and "ARGH THIS SUCKS AND SO DO YOU."
Oversight and transparency? Yes. Definitely. But that doesn't make it wrong to be angry at the thieves.
...okay. That was long.
*Or IF YOU HAVE GUESTS, Skeezy ExBoss. GAH.
Reply
Yes... and I think you should consider the possibility that for a great many people it is ok. For instance; most of Egypt clearly thinks this is ok. Given that, and given it's entirely your place to pass judgment on whether such people are right, the thing that has to be done is to take into account whether they think it's right, and how justified they are in thinking that. Along the same lines of the principle that you can't really hold a child responsible for putting colors in with the whites if they've only rarely done laundry before.
For instance, some guys actively like how women are made uncomfortable when they're grabbed. That deserves far less sympathy than the dim bulb who doesn't have a father and has only ever been around assholes who do that.
"See, if we're talking about in real life? No. Because if I try to negotiate with GMS or thoughtfully and calmly explain..."
You mistake me, miss! Calmly explaining something can be considered Negotiation, much like a panda bear can be considered a Multi-Cellular Organism. It is... but it is in no way the length and breadth of Negotiation.
All I really mean by that term is that there are two parties, with some set of resources, and some set of goals, and the result is determined by the application of negotiation; leveraging those resources to achieve your goals. Arguably, slapping Skeezy upside the head is a form of negotiation - namely an aggressive move that causes him to reconsider the priority structure of his goals. But note for someone whom 'not getting physically assaulted' or 'not getting embarrassed' are not goals, slapping them may only encourage them. Thankfully, such cases are rare.
"It doesn't take a lot of physical or emotional training to just...not grab people..."
I am not convinced of this. Most people have parents who know how to impart this lesson early - but if you don't, I think it's a hard one to learn. Just like it's hard for people who aren't held as children to learn not overvalue physical contact. Same thing with awkward political viewpoints; if you learned early that being a Republican is socially acceptable, you might have a hard time unlearning that.
One of the reasons I think that, though, is because stories Minervaish has told me about how her grandparents got together - and how people of my parents generation look at 'Mad Men' and say 'Yup, that's pretty much how it was. Rampant sexism and ass-grabbing.' I think it could very easily be harder to learn than many other 'social skills'. I think it also largely depends on the sort of person you're regularly exposed to, which brings me to my final point...
"the version who refuses to follow basic social rules...doesn't [have good points]."
Except that 'not being mopey' is a basic social rule, in many cultures. Showing up on time is a basic social rule. Not burdening others with your emotional baggage without explicit invitation is a basic social rule. Cleaning up after yourself is a basic social rule. In fact, I'd much rather be grabbed regularly (even in a physically intimidating sense) than continue to witness case after case of people not picking up after themselves. It's rude - and I think as the world gets more crowded more rude than not keeping your hands to yourself. So I think that categorizing the one rule that you yourself find more bothersome as clearly more basic, and therefore more indictable, is to my mind a bit hypocritical. Which I know you're ok with. ;)
Reply
Quick and dirty summation: "basic social rules" in my book come down to "don't bug other people for your own comfort or pleasure." That covers cleaning up after yourself, not groping strangers, not having sobbing hysterics in a CVS or conducting a loud breakup at 3 AM when you share an apartment, going to the bathroom in the appropriate facility, and a fair amount of other stuff. These are all on about the same level of "learn it or go the fuck away" basicness. I happen to be bitching about the groping right now, but I'm sure I've said a few things about the others from time to time. ;)
I do think that adults are responsible for learning and correcting their own social oversights and issues*, regardless of Traumatic Backstory, but I would also give a little more slack to someone who I knew was foreign to the culture. (Youngish American college-type guys? No sympathy. None.) That said, if I'm encountering Anonymous Skeezy Dude in a club, I don't know whether he's dumb or a dick, and I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But note for someone whom 'not getting physically assaulted' or 'not getting embarrassed' are not goals, slapping them may only encourage them. Thankfully, such cases are rare.
Yeah. And that's pretty much the point where I hope there are cops or a bouncer or a similar authority, because those guys are fucked up.
Reply
Be well.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment