Here I did misunderstand and thought your post was claiming you meant the “the man starting this thread” as who were referencing. My misread and my aplology for that. Okay, society at large (a majority of people, women included?), to your mind, not just a few loudmouths, hold those conflicting positions (that women are “sexist bitches” if they avoid men, and “should have been more careful” if something should happen)? Is that what you are saying you believe?
If so then I withdraw the comment that such is biased against men and stand by calling it bullshit.
It does seem to imply to me that you feel that I am calling women “sexist bitches” for noting that profiling occurs. Am I out of line making that inference?
Thank you. I don’t care if you call it bullshit. We get to have different interpretations. But for you to put words into my mouth and then claim objectivity was extraordinarily frustrating.
and I believe that is it. Oh, I also acknowledged that the op might be “sexist” even while stating that I thought there was not enough to know that and that his use of the quotes around the word and the fact that English is clearly not his native language, were enough to make me give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
And I stated that a statement that you made was reducing men into misogynistic stereotypes when actually you are reducing all of society into that, women included, which was my bad.
In fact my point in both the thead with monstro about racial profiling behavior and this one is that the either/or implication of using the words “sexist” and “racist” poison the well when discussing the full spectrum of prejudicial behaviors; pointing out prejudicial behavior at all, even while acknowledging that the profiling might have some logic or even justification behind it, is enough to provoke some people into taking offense.
So … interesting … that you are sure I have said that.
Oh I should not have ignored Lamia’s false claim that
which I ignored; responses that warranted my apologizing for having been wrong in my supposition that an income or unknown amount of time in the rain consequence to their preference would not result in them being more evenly random in their choice.
Indeed those were thoughtful replies but they were not exactly saying “no problem.” They were instead acknowledging the nature and limits of their profiling and explaining their reasoning for it. monstro is most concerned most about the “mixed messages” that she believes are sent by interacting with unknown males and the consequences of that. KarlGrenze said “yes, I do discriminate” and cited safety concerns, as did even sven, limiting the profiling to the country, not urban areas.
They defend and justify the discrimination intelligently and thoughtfully and they acknowledge the truth of the claim I made: an identified consequence or the lack of one to the profiled is not the critical factor in the decision to profile. The thoughtful responses are confirmation that the decision to profile is primarily based on the percieved risk of the interaction to the profiler in the estimation of the profiler, be there a consequence to the profiled or not.
I do believe that generalizes to pretty much all profiling. Including in circumstances in which that fear is not consciously identified, in which profiling might be denied with honest emotion as occurring, and which some more significant consequences can occur, especially when added up across society.
Now the main solution to the sort of profiling by females of males discussed in this thread that has been suggested is to systematically reduce the cause of the fear, change the behaviors of those males who make females feel unsafe (hopefully acknowledging that is a minority of males.) And there is broad agreement, including me, that while this sort of profiling does not represent a major societal consequence to the population of those profiled the fact that there is percieved need for it is a indicative of a problem.
The same solution does not apply to racial profiling and the societal level consequence to the profiled population is much greater, very real. A major and highly significant contrast. But the individual level cognitive and psychological processes, that the profiling is driven not by what level of consequence there is to the profiled but by the perceived risk, the internal reality, to to the person doing the profiling, and the offense taken by the profiler to having the profiled identified and questioned, the sort of reaction such provokes, are pretty much the same.
And I stand by my belief that understanding those common fundamental processes is important, that being aware of them as we do them, is important. Please note: I state that with full acknowledgement that I highly likely do unconscious profiling despite my best intent and quite probably would similarly profile against some males in some circumstances if I was a young female. As it is I am a White male married to the same woman for more of my life than I have not been by a few years. Guess what? The unconscious profiling done by my demographic actually matters.
So take your responses to my identifying and questioning your profiling, your prejudiced decisions, which I never even called “sexist” (and didn’t actually use the word “bitch”) and consider them. Is there any possibility that such informs on how to approach discussion of alleged sexism by males or racism by Whites in the workplace or the voting booth? Or is conflating them absolute bullshit?
Heh. Trying to do a quick search to see if there was anything out there about how sexist New Zealand is I found this that I wonder what thread participants think of.
Offered without comment but curious to hear what comments others may have.
Is English your first language? I can’t tell if this was supposed to be an acknowledgement that I was correct in pointing out that three different women said they would be willing to share a cab with a man and that they thus deserve an apology from you for saying they’d leave a man in the rain, or if that’s all part of what you consider to be my “false claim”.
Eh… I’m not from New Zealand, and I currently live in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago (not from here either). Sexism is very much present here (as in the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America).
It seems that he focused on the exceptions while you focused on the overall. Overall, all the women said “yea, we’d be willing to share a cab with a man, BUT…”
DSeid, despite you being the most outspoken male doper in this thread, the comment I typed was not directed at you. And indeed, if you read the other posts (and even the OP), you can see that some men have reacted negatively (in a major or lesser way) to the fact that women do some profiling.
Karl you do remember that question was not if you ever share a cab with a male but was whether or not the same biases that impact seat choice would impact other decisions you make including if there was some consequence to the male, such as given a choice between picking up to share your cab a male or a another female who you would choose and who you would leave in the rain? (Not if there was only the male would you refuse to share, leaving him in the rain.) The supposition was
To the degree the question was answered that you would under certain circumstances have no problem sharing a cab with a male you did not actually answer the question. To the degree that you acknowledged, as monstro clearly did, that of course you discriminate against males in other ways outside of just the bus seating preference, consequence or not (in monstro’s case while stating that she would share a cab equally, being less concerned with safety than with sexual messaging she would just not interact much with the unknown male), it acknowledges and affirms the point of my supposition: the percieved fear/risk of the unknown male contact impacts other choices as well and the presence or lack of more real consequence to the profiled is not a major factor in profiling action (whether those actions are made as conscious choices or implicitly). It is all about the percieved risks; not the magnitude of the consequence.
Karl let me ask you the other more extreme scenario, the one that Lamia characterized as me thinking that women are out to kill innocent men (I again mourn the loss of a real roll-eyes :))- imagine a woman who carries a weapon and believes in using that weapon to defend herself if she feel threatened and who like some women of this thread percieves strange men as risks. Do you feel that she is as likely to use that weapon against a woman who suddenly appeared out of the shadows as she is a man who does? (Or do you believe that those who carry weapons never use them mistakenly percieving a threat?)
And really, no comments about the airlines that routinely move males so that a male is not seated next to an unaccompanied minor? That “that only women were allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children” because “in the absence of any other test, it’s one way in which the airline can reduce the risk of children travelling alone”?
I am male. I’ve always been thin, and no doubt look fairly slight (though tall) from behind. For many years I had long hair, which eventually reached waist length.
I had my arse grabbed several times by creepy guys who, when I turned round and they realised that I’m a guy, apologised profusely, invariably saying “I thought you were girl!” - as if, had I been female, it would have been perfectly acceptable behaviour.
So, yeah, I can assure any doubting guys that it happens, and it no doubt happens even more often to actual women than it does to skinny long-haired guys.
I don’t know. There’s such a low probability of anything happening to anyone on a plane that it certainly seems like a crazy policy. But in my memory bank is two incidents of a male seat “neighbor” exposing his penis. The penis never made contact with me. I was more grossed out than tramautized. And I just got up and left. I have never given either of these episodes much thought until this thread. But I have to admit, DSeid, that they would register in my mind if I ever had to send an unaccompanied minor on public transportation. Perhaps not an airplane. But on a Greyhound bus or Amtrak, yes.
A couple of summers my mother shipped my twin and me up to Chicago by Greyhound (from Atlanta). This was in the 80s, before CNN made us afraid of our shadows. I don’t remember my mother’s instructions to us with regards to safety. But if I had been her, I would have told us to not sit in the back of the bus and that if we needed assistance, contact the bus operator. And if he/she isn’t available (or was too busy driving), seek out help from a matronly-looking woman. Which really isn’t that far-removed from the airline seating policy.
I will confess: If a little kid was riding a bus unaccompanied and there were plenty of seats available, but a guy decided to sit next to the kid, especially a female kid, I’d be concerned. And I’d be more concerned than I would be if a woman, especially a “motherly” looking woman, did the same thing. And I will also confess to not feeling guilty or ashamed about this feeling. I wouldn’t immediately call the police based on this reaction. But it would stick in my mind enough for me to call the police if it came out that something bad happened to the kid.
Since this is on the forth page, and the OP has long vanished, it’s probably not relevant any longer, but the girl described in OP did not shun him simply because he was a guy. Based on a couple of decades of riding public transportation in Tokyo, he was “snubbed” because he was aware of her and she was aware of him being aware of her. As he wrote, the school girl spent 10 seconds trying to decide where to sit. He was watching her (“She caught my attention but I tried to act normally as she was deciding.”) and when people are aware of you looking at them, they go somewhere else.
In Tokyo, looking that long at a person is not cool, and I would suspect that’s going to be the same in any large city. As a foreigner, lots of people want to practice their English on me, and I’d do exactly the same thing to anyone watching me.
In Japan, when people to stare, it tends to the men or boys much more then women or girls.
Thank you for saying this. I’ve been trying to make basically this same point since the first page, when I noted that the other young girl who inspired this thread actually told the OP why she didn’t want to sit next to him: she wanted to go sit with her friend. In neither of the two incidents he characterized as a young woman refusing to sit with a man was there any evidence that his gender was the issue.
While I can easily believe that the OP really has observed that young women are less likely to sit beside men than women, he seems to have allowed this observation to become a stereotype that he applies to all young women on the bus regardless of their actual behavior. And then he complains about how these women are judging him.