If by winning you mean preventing any individual assholes from saying stupid things then no, none of us can ever win.
If you are claiming that most men take any of those positions, rather than a few loudmouth jerks who get on soapboxes with megaphones, then I call bullshit.
Yes you are generalizing horribly and reducing men into misogynistic sterotypes.
And taking what was, from his use of the quote around the word “slutty”, a means of painting a picture (albeit the point was a poor one) with one word of what the young woman he was talkng like was dressed like, used by someone who does not live in America and who likely is not a native speaker, and reading a whole mess of baggage into it.
For someone who’s so concerned about sexism and unconscious stereotyping, you’re awfully quick to make negative generalizations and assumptions about women. You’re also justfullofexcuses when other men do things like call young girls sluts because of how they’re dressed and wonder why anyone would sit next to such a slut on the bus. Oh yes, and you think it’s unfair to criticize or mock this man for complaining about being judged by women on the bus while he’s sitting there thinking about what a slut this girl must be.
I must say, this is awfully strange behavior for someone who is opposed to prejudice and just wants to have a calm and productive discussion. It’s so strange that it makes me a little suspicious. But then again I’m just the woman who ruined this thread by being too emotional…according to the man who became so angry reading this thread that he had to leave the room.
Someone trying to protect themselves is sexist, but someone calling someone sexist names is just trying to paint a picture.
Note: I didn’t say anything about all men making judgments. I didn’t even say men. Now who has baggage?
I’ve had women make conversation in a bus or train, but never when my body language made it clear I was reading/looking out the window/trying to sleep. Men who find me in their target age will strike a conversation when I’m reading a book in a foreign language… I mean, I may not even fucking understand what they say! A few weeks ago I was sitting in a park, reading a book in French, and a guy about my mother’s age tried to chat me up mistaking me for a northern-Africa immigrant because of the book and the scarf I wore; it took him several minutes to grok that no, I was not interested in chatting with him, in having lunch with him or in him helping me get papers I do not need in exchange for warming his old bones.
Also, and I was thinking about this after the post to which you responded, when someone* points me to a seat what they do is say “there is a seat here”. They do not tell me to sit down, they just point out that a seat is available and if I don’t want to take it, “thank you” while not moving towards it is enough, they don’t insist. The people who point out a seat will not try to make conversation; they may have a question at some point (“excuse me, do you know which is the best stop for the theater?” or “I love your sweater, where did you but it?”) but they won’t try to chat me up.
In most of the country, a woman; in the Basque areas men will also often do this. The one time I had a guy do this outside the Basque areas it turned out he was from Barakaldo :p. I’m wondering whether this is linked to the whole so-called “Basque matriarcate” thing, where in general men from other areas tend to boss women around more than ours do. Ours know that if they get too bossy we won’t let them into the kitchen…
In an ideal world, it should be what you mentioned. No one would need to profile, everyone could trust where they seat, or the cabdriver. Women wouldn’t be subject to catcalls, unwanted advances, or groping because of where they are and how they’re dressed, etc.
In reality, none of that happens. In general, women are subject to almost daily sexist acts, words, harassment, violence, ranging from minor to major. Only because they are women.
Put it in perspective. The profiling that goes on when choosing where to sit on a bus, or even which taxi driver to choose, which has been mentioned here… is minor compared to what women go through, on a daily basis. I’ve rejected taxis much less than I’ve been catcalled (from minor to profanity, and insults if I dare ignore their stupid comments), and probably even less than the times I’ve been ignored, thought to know less, be less because I am a woman instead of a man. And those minor profilings we do? They’re a response to what we receive. You want to stop that? Stop the actions that make us do that. Stop coddling gropers, catcallers, street harassers, loudmouths, etc. Stop ignoring our perspective, stop ignoring our anecdotes because “this is not how I (man) behave, I do not see that”, open your mind to what is going around, acknowledge your advantage and use it to help (like Incubus does).
Meh. I might think it’s silly for a medical doctor (though definitely understand why a woman might prefer a female gyno). But a psychotherapist? I can totally understand why a guy seeks out a guy and a woman seeks out a woman. Trust and mutual understanding is so hugely important in the therapeutic relationship. You really want someone to get you when you’re feeling out of sorts, and having to cross gulfs like gender and culture can be exhausting even when you’re well. (Plus, potential sexual attraction stuff can complicate the relationship).
My therapist is a white well-to-do married Jewish woman in her late 70s. If she were male, we would be polar opposites of one another. As it is now, I feel like I have to explain entirely way too many things to her. Which is exhausting considering that one of my issues is always feeling like a misunderstood alien. But the fact that I don’t have to explain to her how it feels to be a woman…well…it takes a load off. I don’t think I’m silly for trying to have one area that we have in common, especially when most people can do this without even trying.
And although I don’t like racial discrimination, I make an allowance for it in the therapeutic setting. If I was trying to overcome trauma from racial abuse, then it would make sense to seek out a professional who knows what it feels like to be a racial minority. Your randomly selected black psychologist may be just as clueless as anyone else in this department, but they probably won’t be. And they are more likely to be able to refer me to someone else who can help if they can’t help me.
I think our bodies shape the experiences and understandings we have about the world. I do not think we’d be having this conversation if you were a woman, for instance. I think it’s silly to pretend this isn’t the case.
Lamia now accuses me of calling her “too emotional.” Which is funny because it is so classic. No, I don’t think you are too emotional. I think you are responding with lots of anger and hostility and are behaving like a complete jerk. Not “too emotional.” As for my getting angry and taking myself out of the room - I personally have no problem recognizing when I am getting angry and disengaging before I respond in anger. I do it in real life as well and have literally excused myself to leave the room to calm down before I respond. I learned to do that decades ago when I stopped being a teen ager who got into fights and became an adult. Responding when acutely angry is usually a mistake for me and I rarely do that.
jsgoddess, to clarify then - the “winning” that you complain women “can’t” do, would require what? It really does seem like you are complaining then that someone will complain no matter what, and so you can’t win. Uh, yeah. Pretty trite. Not so special for women, really.
I am not sure what our op is. Possibly sexist. Clearly not American English as a first language. I do see a difference between calling someone a slut (or “women slutty”) and writing of a particular girl as
You don’t? Okay. Opinions vary. Am I “sexist” for not seeing that as automatically sexist? In the view of some here aparently yes. Which is something else I find interesting.
And “trying to protect yourself” is “sexist” only to the same degree that other profiling is “racist.” It is prejudiced behavior without question, by definition.
Nava thank you for your post.
KarlGrenze since I am the prime male in this thread, I am not sure who are speaking about as “complaining” … I am not complaining. I am noting. Observing. Commenting on. For the umpteenth time - anyone who wants to leave a seat next to me empty is doing me a favor if I was on a bus which I rarely am. And I understand why women who profile do; it makes some sense. To me what is interesting is how the responses here inform about broader subjects and the psychology of profiling in a more general sense.
monstro, I really am curious what your thoughts are about that Black woman’s caretaker hypothetical. To you, your humble opinion, are acting on any of those preferences inappropriate or silly or wrong, iif so where do you draw your line and why?
If the black woman doesn’t want a Hispanic caretaker because she thinks Hispanics are untrustworthy, lying, criminal, lazy no-good-people, then yes, she’s being “silly”.
If she doesn’t want a Hispanic caretaker because she’s worried about the language barrier, then that’s not so silly. You should be able to communicate effectively with whomever is doling out your medication. I wouldn’t agree with screening out applicants with “foreign-sounding” last names, but the strategy certainly makes sense if you don’t want to be bothered with heavy accents. And if the old lady is looking for a caretaker who will also be a companion since she lives alone and doesn’t have anyone who can serve as a go-between, then communication definitely isn’t a trivial concern. It seems wrong to begrudge someone in this position the freedom to rank personal comfort above treating everyone the exact same way.
I’m curious how experienced you are with choosing healthcare professionals who differ from you. It’s fine and dandy to judge people’s doctor-shopping choices as “silly” when you’ve never been confronted with a network catalogue full of faces and names that are nothing like yours. Have you ever been seen by a young, black, female doctor? Or have most of the doctors you have worked with been similar to you in terms of race, gender, class, sexuality, and/or ethnicity/nationality? Because if you haven’t been in the “minority patient” position before, it’s a bit rich of you to opine as if you have direct experience with this.
And do you think I’m silly for having chosen a woman psychotherapist? Is it fair to call me “discriminatory” when on all other accounts, I chose someone who is not like me at all and when all the other members of my healthcare team are white men?* At what point is a member of a minority group justified in saying, “You know what? I’m kind of sick of being a minority all the DAMN time!!”
I am a rare consumer of healthcare myself so not a good judge. My dermatologist (family history of melanoma and had a changing mole) happens to be Black but I chose him solely on the basis that he has a good reputation (enough that I send him all our derm referrals). I really don’t care what his color is. My office partners include 3 women and one male. The women include one of Arab heritage (second generation).
Wait are males “dangerous”? I have not heard that quite said here as justification for profiling. Just more of a risk than a woman. The comfort in such a choice does not require making broad generalizations. Profiling does not require broad absolute beliefs like “Men are …”, “Hispanics are …”, “Blacks are …” They merely require some feeling better or safer being with. I’ll qualify that language is not an issue and that the Black woman would not explicitly endorse a statement of "Hispanics are … " She would however (possibly reluctantly) say that she thinks Hispanics are a bit more likely to steal from here because one Hispanic worker did in the past. Her belief is that she can trust a Black caretaker more. Is that okay? Silly? What? Does it change if the woman is White and the caretaker Black?
I think you are silly for assuming that a woman is automatically more likely to be a better fit. That said transference based on superficial characteristics is an issue in psychotherapy that complicates this particular example.
The last bit is most cogent: profiling is okay for you to do as a woman and as a Black because it is usually done against you? That has some validity to some limited degree I think.
If this were the case, sociopaths would get away with their behavior, constantly. Even so, unless we can read minds, we have little verifiable way of knowing anyone’s thought process when they choose a seat-- but clearly, people are taking offense, despite this, which means the above must be false.
This sounds like a slippery slope argument. You’d have to know any person, personally, to really understand how far their perception of people goes, and whether or not that perception extends into a greater issue. As it relates to anything you could gather from all but a few seconds on a bus (as the person makes a seating decision), you couldn’t and shouldn’t infer this much.
There are disconnects, but I wouldn’t summarize it like this. This polarizes issues and assumes there are sides between men and women. I don’t immediately assume the extreme when someone makes a subconscious low-level decision like this. I understand that no person stepping on the bus knows me personally, much less my intentions, but I do understand that there is a lot of harassment which goes on, day to day. For the latter reason, I understand that something benign enough like choosing a seat, probably has less to do with me, personally. As such, I don’t take it personal.
If we don’t like it and want this “culture” to change, then with respect to balance, it’s silly to expect women to initiate that change. The people who harass and make other peoples lives unpleasant are the ones who will have to be reined in, as they’re the direct cause of the problem. We’re just seeing a reaction.
In other words, I frown at the people who constantly stain my image, because it forces an uphill battle for decent people.
Personally, and at worst, I consider a person being selective about a seat on a bus to be low-level profiling, in this context. I wouldn’t go into accusations of full blown prejudice or sexism, as those words encompass a lot of other ideas, which may not fit the broader views of people making simple and quick decisions.
Granted, some people in this thread have gone into more detail with other scenarios, but in most encounters, a person has no way of knowing if it’s their gender, skin color, clothing selection, smell, a combination of these, or nothing at all, which caused a person to take a given seat.
Of course it’s silly for her to draw that conclusion from such a limited experience. And if we were taking about someone my mother’s age, I’d expend some effort to talk some sense into her. If she’s my 86 year old Nana, though, I’d probably let her “win”. Some ignorance is worth fighting and some isn’t.
It’s not just about transference (which isn’t really an issue in the kind of therapy I’m in). For me, it’s about the kind of advice I’m likely to receive. And this is where experience really does matter. For example and not to be too TMI, my therapist taught me how to work a vibrator to maximize orgasm without making me feel (that) weird. When a medication was giving me incontinence issues, she whipped out some pads from her personal stash, just to show me that I wasn’t alone. She once referred me to her personal gyno and talked me through what the exam entails (and how it feels). I am never embarrassed talking to her about PMS, because she has shared with me how she has handled it (whereas many male doctors still refuse to admit it exists).
Could a guy have done these things, in quite the same way? No. There is nothing you can say to convince me that a man would be able to show me how to reach orgasm WITHOUT it being very uncomfortable for me. Maybe SOME man could, but I don’t have money or time to search out that guy. And it would be “silly” for me to try.
Um…no. That’s not what I have been saying at all.
What I have been saying is that choosing a doctor based on “intangibles” like race and gender is not always bad, because these things are good proxies for experience with certain issues. When an individual has limited resources to explore options with, “proxies” are damned useful. And this folds into my larger point about gender profiling. Yes, discrimination should be avoided. But we should’t be victims of black-and-white logic. Sometimes it really makes sense to make some assumptions about a person based on their genitalia. A rule like “NEVER DISCRIMINATE” is thus very oversimplistic. It sounds like something a person who is in a position of priviledge comes up with because it sounds good in theory, and they’ve never before experienced the ramifications when the theory" breaks down.
So, you think there are threads here about men not choosing to sit next to people on the bus?
Culturally, men’s choices are seen as fine unless there is a reason to complain. Women’s choices are seen as suspect unless they come up with a valid reason.
Women’s choices are always compared with men’s choices. Men’s choices are the default and women’s the aberration.
Culturally, men are the default. Women are the aberration.
Culturally (talking the US here), whites are the default.
Culturally (still talking the US here), Christians are the default.
When you’re in the default categories, it can be really hard to see that you’re constantly holding up your own actions as the normal ones and everyone else has to justify theirs. I know I am guilty of this quite often. I am white and grew up Catholic. Those are my baselines, even if I’m now an atheist and now in an interracial relationship. I’m still white and I’m still acculturated to Christianity.
But I’m also a woman, and I see where the default doesn’t include me as well as where it does. And I, like most men and women, hold women to a different standard than I hold men. But I can also identify when someone is picking apart decisions made by women where they wouldn’t do the same with men. And that is what the OP is doing.
And, in my opinion, that is what you are also doing.
No, actually that’s what you’re doing. This isn’t really surprising, as you’ve spent this entire thread accusing other people of doing things that you’re doing. I am merely pointing this out.
It is rather interesting to consider the timing of your sudden outrage over what you imagine I am thinking and feeling, though.* In post #100, you said you were going to give the women in this thread a chance to falsify your suspicions about their insidious anti-male prejudice by answering a hypothetical question about a cab driver who asks to pick up an extra passenger on a cold and rainy day. monstro, KarlGrenze, and even sven all took the time to write out thoughtful replies explaining that, as long as they considered their cab driver to be trustworthy, they’d have no problem sharing a cab with a man.
If these women were expecting an apology from you for having misjudged them, or at least some sort of acknowledgement that they had answered your question, then they must have been disappointed. Instead you quoted a single sentence from a post of mine (one made aftermonstro, KarlGrenze, and even sven’s posts), and declared that you were done with this thread. It certainly is convenient that you “realized” the discussion was a waste of time at the very moment that an honest man might have felt obligated to admit that he was wrong. Of course, now that you’ve returned to the thread there’s nothing to prevent you from making such an admission. I’m sure you were planning to get around to it at some point, what with you being so concerned about unconscious prejudice and all.
*I note that the only reason this thread even exists is because a man was upset by what he imagined women were thinking and feeling. I suppose it’s understandable that he’d only be defended by others who shared this habit.
monstro I get what yu are saying about proxies … and indeed a male would likely not be able to have been as knowledgeable about the subjects you referenced or as effective at communicating about them if he possessed the knowledge.
It is however the either/or fallacy that many of the reactions in this thread illustrate and that I have been attempting to call attention to. Not “bad” and not “good”; not “justified” or “unfair.” More a slope that is just slippery enough that one should very conscious of where one puts one foot and why, and one that treading in regards to gender can inform some about how we tread with other profiling circumstances when the shoe is on the other foot as well.
jsgoddess yes there are threads about the profiling choices men make and Whites make. And should be because we make them and even the minor inconsequential ones are telling of potential risks that we may do profiling (even implicitly; not consciously aware) in matters of greater consequence.
It’s also intellectually dishonest. Everyone discriminates based on gender, and the position that it’s wrong to do so–no matter the circumstances–is too facile to take seriously. That’s why I’m surprised this thread has gone on for so long.
I say this as someone who rarely pays attention to whom I’m sitting next to on public transit. Not because I believe in treating men and women the same and thus, morally superior to anyone who doesn’t, but because I’m too lazy to discriminate. Fortunately, I’ve only been groped once on a train, so maybe this explains my lazy ways.
As long as we live in a world where women are expected to minimize risk to themselves no matter how extreme the measures, we will live in a world where women will think twice before sitting next to a man on a bus. I don’t see why this would be shocking to anyone, either. A few months ago, in a thread about how women shouldn’t get drunk around unknown men if they don’t want to get raped, there was a good many posters who seemed to think this was sage advice. Sadly, though, they didn’t seem to see the implications of this admonishment. It means discriminating against all men as though they are potential rapists, including the “good” ones. It means parties where are all the guys are encouraged to do keg stands and jello shots until they’re roaring drunk, while the ladies stand to the side in sober little huddles while sipping their highly diluted beverages drinks very carefully, if, of course, they drink at all. It means woman distrusting any man who offers to buy them a drink, because obviously that means he’s just trying to lower her defenses so he can overpower her later. It also means when women are raped while drunk, they will feel pressured not to report it because inevitably they will be judged for “putting themselves in that position”.
This is what happens when we prioritize a woman’s safety over her freedom to live as freely as a man. Just something to think about.
You probably don’t see it this way, but I view the way you are picking and choosing how to respond in this thread pretty intellectually dishonest. You accused me of stereotyping men, then when I pointed out the leap you were making, you suddenly drop the issue. I talk about threads asking about where men sit on the bus and you change it to “the profiling choices men make and whites make.” You keep conflating sex and race, which is bullshit for the reasons monstro has already pointed out.
And then you act as if you are the only one really addressing it all objectively and fairly.
You are right that I do not see it that way and that I do not even see what leap I was making that you pointed out that I then dropped: if you believe “women can’t win” because some individual jerk will say something either way, well that is trite, no one ever wins under that definition. If you believe “women can’t win” because men in general will say both those things, well, yes that is bullshit and promulgating a stereotype. I didn’t drop that. I stated it pretty clearly. You apparently find the possibility that you stereotype hard to accept. Oh well.
No, there are not other threads about men choosing where to sit on the bus. And if you have understood that what I have been attempting to discuss is specifically about the choice of where women sit as an Issue of Great Importance then either I have been a very poor communicator or you have a very narrow focus once the question of your profiling behavior has been raised that cannot hear anything other than that very narrow concept or a bit of both.
To me the Subject of Significance is Profiling. You seem to believe that the profiling that occurs between gender and race are fundamentally different from each (perhaps one is evil and the other just?), that it is bullshit to in any way conflate or meaningfully compare/contrast the two. I do not see them as the same but I do see that the cognitive and psychological processes that are involved in them and that get triggered in any discussion of them share more than they do not. Including the defense responses of the people who do the profiling. There are differences and they are not insignificant but that in no way means that the fundamental similarities are not also significant and informative, at least to me and to my read. YMMV.
In this gender bus seat specific example, yes I actually am a bit more objective, frankly, because I have no skin in the game. I hardly ever ride on a bus and would only appreciate anyone who decided not to sit near me for whatever reason. I don’t care where people sit or if they sit and prefer to be avoided. I am not being profiled in this specific case, have no consequence I have experienced, and have never been aware of being so profiled (although it likely has occurred in ways that I was clueless about). I am also not one of the profilers in this case. Neither have I experienced the experiences that have led the profilers to conclude (it seems with reasonable cause) that their profiling is a rational action. Or even witnessed them to the best of my knowledge. Yes, that does equal a bit more objectivity. Pretty much by definition.
There is a body of research available on implicit prejudice, that is the split second decision made, often by people who would never endorse explicit racist or sexist statements, every day that are clearly biased on the basis of superficial factors like race or gender. monstro and I were in a past discussion (in which I also struggled with less than grace to articulate my thoughts I think) in which I was trying to make the point that declaring every White who does any profiling as “racist” was counter-productive to making any sort of change on those behaviors. It is hard enough to get people to even accept the possibility that they might be profiling. She noted how upsetting it is to her to note that profiling occured (her example being something, if I recall correctly, of very little significant consequence of than her feelings, something like being followed in a store) and to have her understanding of that experience to even be questioned. (By people who likely are a bit defensive because they are afraid that they might do similar things.)
You think that circumstance and this thread have no ability to inform each other. Again, I disagree.
You think I am being dishonest and spouting bullshit. Fine. Your opinion is noted.
And really I am not ignoring anything from here but since the conversation is clearly not resulting in any exchange of ideas in either direction (other than my having heard and appreciated the validity of the varied reasons why many women profile) I likely will be moving on to other threads. Yes, I hear that some here now think I am a misogynist and worse. Whatever.
I didn’t say it was MEN DOING IT. I never specified a sex doing it. The only sex of a perpetrator I named was the man starting this thread. You are so determined to find that someone is saying something against men, that you IGNORE AND CANNOT CONCEIVE THAT I NEVER ACCUSED MEN OF IT.
Jesus Christ, can there be a better example of someone seeing what they want to see than your claims that I was accusing MEN when I didn’t specify any particular sex?
Maybe putting it in all caps like this will help, but I sincerely doubt it. Because you want to believe that you have no skin in the game and are above it all. What facile nonsense.
So, you feel those are the only two choices? It has to be about men or it has to be about a man? Again, you call everyone else subjective and talk about their baggage and you can’t even see your own. It’s funny that I comment about the default being male and you read every instance of “someone” as “men.”
I’ll quote myself, because it’s fun. I’ll even highlight a part that might serve as a clue for you:
