You’ve never shown yourself to be a gentlemen, shithead.
How I originally referred to her was “a former escort service worker and professional pimp”, which is an accurate description, not “a sex worker”, which could misleadingly imply that she personally was selling sex to clients. If you chose to interpret my accurate description as equivalent to “call girl”, that’s on you.
Again, my description of Barrows’s professional status was accurate, and the standard dictionary definition and synonyms given for the word “pimp” are not particularly esoteric. If you chose to challenge it because you interpret “pimp” as meaning something different, again, that’s on you.
Hey, if you and your co-workers are choosing to use some unnecessary “security theater” rituals as an excuse for a little pleasant socializing in a situation where there isn’t actually any significant safety risk, that’s your choice and I have no quarrel with it.
I’m just pointing out that if any of you genuinely believe that this not-letting-women-walk-to-their-cars-alone routine is a serious safety precaution, and that your female co-workers should “depend” on it in order to feel adequately secure at their workplace, then what you are doing, by its very nature, is promoting restrictive supervision of law-abiding women’s behavior as a safeguard against potential criminal behavior by men.
I’m not trying to be mean to you by mentioning this quite self-evident fact. I’m not interested in trying to shame or scold men, even rather fatuous and conceited ones, who are genuinely well-intentioned towards women. But I think it’s important to point it out when men are actively promoting restrictions on women’s behavior, however well-intentioned, and however euphemistically phrased in terms of concepts like “chivalry” and “respect” and “courtesy” and “caring”.
Someone on twitter suggested that a non-gendered rendition of the quote would be best as “The more respectable you act, the more you will be respected.” It still makes you responsible for how others treat you, but at least it doesn’t burden one gender.
Nor are you, what’s your point?
Now I have the delightful Storm Large in my brain, so thanks for that, ock!
I’m not plural so that’s one hurdle. Secondly, if we were to go on a date:o, as a hypothetical, I’d let you order off the dollar menu AND get a dessert. Shagnasty isn’t the only player on this board.
do WHAT??? Please explain to me under what circumstances a man is justified in mistreating a woman because of her behavior.
Then please explain to me why you find someone’s ignorance to be encouraging.
See if you can keep it short and to the point. I think that this is the whole point of what you’re missing. There is no point at which a person of either sex is justified in treating any other person as someone deserving of assault. The quote painted on the wall at the Houston school implies that if a young woman wants to be unmolested, it is up to her.
It. Is. Not.
You can be the perfect lady and that will make you more of a target to certain assailants. In fact, many women make themselves more vulnerable by falling for that old load of crap that says they must be kind and helpful to everyone, that women must be nurturing. You know who counted on that? Ted Bundy. He wore a fake cast many times because he knew that women would feel like they should help him out. He counted on them being ladylike and helpful-- and he raped and killed them.
ok. You still with me, Sparky?
That quote, I think we can agree, would not have meant a thing to the Ted Bundys of this world.
You can spray paint a world of nice sentiments and it wouldn’t affect real sociopaths.
We’re talking about the message it sends to the average person. And the average person should not be given the message that his or her behavior can be justified by the other person’s. No. You can’t withhold your rent because the landlord didn’t spray for bugs. No. You can’t beat someone up because they called you a name. No. You can’t throw poisoned meat over the fence because their dog barked all night. No. You can’t touch a girl’s breast because her shirt is cut low.
Oh. And saying Ms. Barrow wasn’t a sex worker is like saying the manager at Jack in the Box doesn’t work in fast food because he wears a tie at work. Just cause you don’t handle the meat day to day doesn’t mean you don’t deal with it.
I’m honestly surprised that you still have a job and that your company continues to allow you to harass women on what sounds like a daily basis.
Not that surprising. They’ve been taught that they have to be nice when someone is saying they’re trying to be helpful no matter how creepy the behavior is. And yes, insisting on accompanying someone to their car when they find it odd is very creepy.
Actual message stencilled on school wall, word for word:
(My bolding)
That was hilarious.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and agree with SA that having someone accompany me out into a dark parking lot late at night is a good thing. In fact eons ago when I was at uni, the campus authorities employed folks to chaperone us back to our cars after-hours. This came about after a series of very nasty attacks and rapes of young women.
But we were bad wimmins back in those university days. Drinking lots, fucking lots and swearing lots, especially us liberal-arts majors. Of course we were asking for it, right? :dubious:
SA, maybe your workplace should look at hiring someone to patrol the parking areas at night, or perhaps a formal chaperone system could be put in place.
OK…we may now return to our normal rants.
Ya’ know, I’m thinking ol’ Starvey Arty might just have a point about people misinterpreting the real intent of this obviously well-meaning, if perhaps unartfully-worded message
Let’s follow his suggestions and see if we can’t fix it up a little.
“The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman. #NotAllMen”
***“The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman. Or maybe take up kickboxing just in case.” ***
***“The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman. And keep an aspirin between your knees.” ***
“The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman. You can change him!”
***"The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman. So quit acting like a pussy/bitch/brat/snowflake/slut/victim/tomboy/diva/dyke/gold-digger and start acting like a god-damn LADY! ***
More and more I’m becoming convinced that Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected other areas of the board as well. Why on earth are you asking me this?
The answer is contained in that quote of mine you posted above.
Agreed.
No, it doesn’t. Not even close.
I would imagine this is so.
Here you display a significant misunderstanding of what ladylike behavior actually is. A ladylike demeanor encompasses poise, self-respect, discipline, proper manners, etc. Certainly there are many women out there who are very sweet and caring people and who would do anything for anyone. I happen to think these are very sweet and admirable women, and were I to get married it would be to someone like that. But this behavior doesn’t make them ladies. Women who possess true ladylike attributes can be quite intimidating if the situation calls for it, and they won’t hesitate to shut someone down, albeit in a very elegant way, should they say or begin to do the wrong thing. I’ve seen Sydney Biddle Barrows, for example, politely wag her finger while stating “No, no, no, that’s not right” to some erroneous comment or supposition during an interview, and believe me, it shuts the guy right down. It’s truly fascinating to watch how effective this kind of reproach is.
Such behavior is a bit much to expect of 13 and 14-year-old middle school girls admittedly, but you get the idea. Ladylike women are far from pushovers.
Agreed.
I agree. Take for example a nice sentiment along the lines of: Do Not Wait For Someone Else To Speak For You. It’s You Who Can Change The World. It won’t affect real sociopaths either.
So what’s your point?
And you can’t make the claim that to encourage young girls to behave in a ladylike fashion is tantamount to making it open season to assault them. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
If anything, I would expect that trash-talking young girls, tattooed and smoking, and with “shit”, “piss”, “fuck”, “cunt”, “cocksucker”, “motherfucker”, and “tits”, (a nod to George Carlin) flowing out of their mouths like water would make much more likely targets for sexual abuse than would be the more ladylike girls, who I should think would come across as too dull and boring to bother with in the mind of your average middle or high school would-be sex offender.
You really are a weirdo, aren’t you? You give me the creeps. You might think that what you are saying is innocuous but it’s really creepy and inappropriate. 
(God this is going to feel good)
Fuck you, Starving Artist. Fuck your idealized fantasy of a past that never was. Fuck your antiquated notions of how women and minorities should behave when bullied and assaulted, fuck your stereotypes and so-called “morality” that’s really just a way for you to justify looking down on others. Fuck your refusal to offer any cites for your outrageous and laughable “facts”, with, claiming you don’t have time, or it’s just what you remember, etc. Fuck your defense of rapists and child molestors, your claims of “they must have done something to cause it, it couldn’t have happen, I can prove it, they were good men, being fondled is better than rape, blah blah blah.” Fuck your refusal to admit you’re ever wrong. Fuck your whiny martyr complex that induces you to claim people only pick on you for being a conservative, when really it’s because you’re a judgemental asshole.
TL;DR
Fuck you, Starving Artist.
drops mic
I know this has been levelled at you before SA, but really, life is NOT a 1950’s TV show. It’s really not, believe me.
Y’know, in the world that I inhabited as a young teen, the fellas steered well clear of girls who had tats and could swear more creatively than they did. And that’s because those young ladies had the balls to shut them down with ‘just a look’. Maybe not a finger wag as much as a finger pointed towards the sky. And a swift kick to the gonads never hurt either…well, it hurt the boys, but still…
You might want to take a look at the way you stereotype peeps SA. Just sayin’
Know the pastorship of the board as I do, I should have said that I make a practice of offering to to walk them to their cars if they’re leaving work when it’s dark.
There’s no pressure and no insistence involved. I simply say something along the lines of “If you’d like to have someone walk with you to your car when you leave tonight, just let me know. I’m kind of old school like that and I’d be happy to do it.”
And as I said upthread, only one woman so far has declined, and that’s because she has been in the Army and believes herself capable of her own self-defense.
Make up your mind. Is it being “the perfect lady” or being “trash-talking […], tattooed and smoking”, etc., that makes a young girl more likely to be targeted for sexual abuse/harassment? Or both? Or what?
In any case, I trust we’re all in agreement that having tattoos or smoking or cussing does not make a young girl deserving of sexual harassment or abuse. And that the response to sexual harassment or abuse directed at girls (or women) should be to denounce and discipline their harassers/abusers. Not to try to shame the girls/women for their own (non-abusive) behavior or to imply that it was their responsibility to improve the abusers’ behavior by acting more “ladylike”.
Yep, mea culpa. It had been a few days and I misremembered the exact quote. My mistake.