Acceptable behaviour favours woman?

Catsmokinpot

quite true women do tend to cry when they dont get their way, im a technical support advisor, and in my job their is contracts involved, many of the women i deal with start crying when they realise they are tied in to a contract, then when they realise im not giving them any leway. they start yelling down the phone at me.... they new what they had signed up to, what do they expect they are dealing with a multinational corporation. they have the opportunity to read it at any stage, yet they still start crying, i dont understand it. and i have no sympathy for them. especially if they think crying will get them somewhere

conclusion: women are moany bitches sometimes.

Lemming

MorningStar wrote:

Look at it from the inspectors view.
1) woman arrives without ticket
2) woman claims station closed
3) it is verified the station was open
4) Calls woman a fare evador
5) She starts to cry.

"Verified that the station was open". Riiiiiight ... This was the same station which was as the woman described? :rolleyes:

With the staff members in question hidden away inside not doing their job? Of course they're going to say "we're open". Do you expect them to say "oh yeah, we're skyving off work"?

You seem to be doing the role of the "tireless rebutter" MS. Despite the clear statement that the vendor office was as the woman described when the Inspector went to check for himself, you keep insisting that "white is black".

Policies have changed where everybody who is suspected as a fare evador has their name taken.

And you have access to CIE's operations procedure notices then I trust? Wouldy ou mind showing us them? And not some anectode.

I asked you two questions which you were unable to answer or refuse to.

What should he have called her?

What should have done once she started crying?

Pardon me. I was busy wondering how pedantically unempathic the human race could become, then read your posts.

What should he have called her? If he were in anyway NOT powertripping, he'd not have called her a fare dodger in full view of the public. The police, upon arresting you, don't even do that.

As for what he should have done? Taken her to one side away from full view of the public and dealt with the matter there. The fact that it was done whilst surrounded by people was deliberately calculated to intimidate.

THe inspector made a reasonable accusation

Publically *stating* that somebody is a fare dodger is not an accusation, nor reasonable. It verges on slander. Once again, I'll point you to the fact that the police don't call you a criminal and then arrest you. Neither do shop security (the professional ones anyway) simply announce to all and sundry that you are a shop lifter (sticking with your prior analogy). They ask you to come with them, then call the police.

and she acted unreasonbably. It does not matter who was right or wrong it is her reaction that is the question. She managed to humiliate her self more and most people would probably assumed she was guilty.

Or she was innocent and desperate to prove that she was innocent when the inspector didn't give a rats ass and was playing judge jury and executioner.

simu

MorningStar wrote:

I never even suggested it was how typical woman react. All I said was people seem to find it acceptable if they do. THe situations weren't so much annoying but part of day to day life that could happen to anyone.

Well ,you seem to be generalising form your first post there.

annR

I don't have the energy to go through the ins and outs of the example about the woman without the ticket but I am still interested to know why a woman crying bothers Morningstar so much. Unless he answers that I have no idea why we're all talking about this.

Zombrex

annR wrote:

but I am still interested to know why a woman crying bothers Morningstar so much.

I am wondering the same thing, or why a person crying should fall under the terms acceptable/unacceptable behaviour in the same way something like shouting at someone would. You don't cry at someone

annR

>>You don't cry at someone<<

unless you're manipulating someone, but it's not that which bothers Morningstar, he doesn't want them crying at all!

Zombrex

annR wrote:

>>You don't cry at someone<<

unless you're manipulating someone, but it's not that which bothers Morningstar, he doesn't want them crying at all!

Agreed, crying just to manipulate someone is not acceptable behaviour. But there is no reason for us or Morningstar to believe that is the case with the example in the other thread.

It seems he is saying (and I might be wrong), that women should not cry (or it should not be acceptable for them to cry) in public just in case it might influence people (men) around them to feel sorry for them.

That, in my view, is ridiculous.

lazydaisy

I dont get what the OPs problem is. The fact is you have no idea what can be going on in someone's life at any given time. Who knows what kind of stress she was under.

I burst into tears once getting a speeding ticket. Why? Because I had just completed a long haul trip, was jetlagged, exhausted, broke, had family problems, was hungry because it was too early to get anything to eat. And being pulled over was the straw that broke my back and I gave into crying because I was overwhelmed.

Women have far more tear ducts than men so we are more prone to crying. But it is true that women have more cultural permission to cry. Also - it's contextual. Sometimes anger is an appropriate response to someone else's unacceptable behavior, just as sometimes crying is. I dont see what the big deal is.

MorningStar

Lemming wrote:

"Verified that the station was open". Riiiiiight ... This was the same station which was as the woman described? :rolleyes:

As far as the inspector could tell as he contacted the station it was open! THe fact of the case don't matter as it was reasonable that the inspector thought the station was open.

Lemming wrote:

And you have access to CIE's operations procedure notices then I trust? Wouldy ou mind showing us them? And not some anectode.

They are avilable when you ask somebody who works there try it yourself rather than assume everything

Lemming wrote:

Pardon me. I was busy wondering how pedantically unempathic the human race could become, then read your posts.

.

Like how you can have empathy and understanding of how a man doing his job must be power triping after you heard 3rd hand accounts of what happened from soembody who feels his mother was slighted. The only person getting the benifit of the doubt for you is the woman.

You never answered the questions I asked again. Maybe you try to pay attention to wjhat is said and what you are saying.

Once the woman started crying what should he have said that was rate?


For those accusing me of claiming to know the difference between the crying I never did I see it as unacceptable adult behaviour. Only extreme situation warrant such loss of control.

My issue with said crying is that there is really no response that is allowed by a man that dfoesn't picture him as the bad guy. As very well illistrated by the overly defensive response to a woman who reasonably was accused of fare evasion. The only sympathy went to the woman and the man was assumed to be wrong and bullying.

Catsmokinpot

lazydaisy wrote:

I dont get what the OPs problem is. The fact is you have no idea what can be going on in someone's life at any given time. Who knows what kind of stress she was under.

I burst into tears once getting a speeding ticket. Why? Because I had just completed a long haul trip, was jetlagged, exhausted, broke, had family problems, was hungry because it was too early to get anything to eat. And being pulled over was the straw that broke my back and I gave into crying because I was overwhelmed.

Women have far more tear ducts than men so we are more prone to crying. But it is true that women have more cultural permission to cry. Also - it's contextual. Sometimes anger is an appropriate response to someone else's unacceptable behavior, just as sometimes crying is. I dont see what the big deal is.

neah id have to disagree with you ive dealt with the general public and on many occasions when i was working as a kitchen porter, tech support agent and i worked in sales i have had women crying, and when they dont get what they want, they get angry i will agree that women can get upset very easily if they are overwhelmed, but tbh alot of them use it as an excuse to get what they want

Lemming

MorningStar wrote:

As far as the inspector could tell as he contacted the station it was open! THe fact of the case don't matter as it was reasonable that the inspector thought the station was open.

"As far as the inspector could tell" when he saw with his own eyes that the vendor booth was _as_described_ by the woman and appeared closed. Only for the fact that he himself was CIE staff and would therefore have business trying to effect entry was it discovered that there in fact people in there.

To assume a station is open is one thing MorningStar, to openly villify someone in public for what you suspect, is not. That is defamation. And I'm very surprised that someone who is apparently "trained" to deal with the public would behave in such a clumsy and litigous sort of way.

They are avilable when you ask somebody who works there try it yourself rather than assume everything

I didn't assume anything. Prior behaviour of staff indicates quite the contrary of what he did. So unless the rules and regulations have recently changed to this effect, how do you excuse his abusive behaviour?

So to quote your "good" self, why don't you go check if the rules and regulations have recently changed since "they are available when you ask somebody who works there".

Like how you can have empathy and understanding of how a man doing his job must be power triping after you heard 3rd hand accounts of what happened from soembody who feels his mother was slighted. The only person getting the benifit of the doubt for you is the woman.

Pot, meet Mr.F*cking Kettle.

You never answered the questions I asked again. Maybe you try to pay attention to wjhat is said and what you are saying.

Once the woman started crying what should he have said that was rate?

Allow me to refresh your obviously short memory as to what exactly yuo asked me.....

Morningstar wrote:

What should he have called her?

What should have done once she started crying?

and my reply was as follows:

lemming wrote:

What should he have called her? If he were in anyway NOT powertripping, he'd not have called her a fare dodger in full view of the public. The police, upon arresting you, don't even do that.

As for what he should have done? Taken her to one side away from full view of the public and dealt with the matter there. The fact that it was done whilst surrounded by people was deliberately calculated to intimidate.

Now, since you are unable to discern that I had in fact actually directly answered your question, allow me to direct you specifically to paragraph two
if you are still feeling confused.

For those accusing me of claiming to know the difference between the crying I never did I see it as unacceptable adult behaviour. Only extreme situation warrant such loss of control.

Tell me, Mr.Psychologist, what consists "extreme" situation? Could, perhaps, being accused in full view of the public of somethign that you did not do, whilst the accuser is acting like judge, jury and executioner and does not want to listen, count as an extreme situation?? :rolleyes:

My issue with said crying is that there is really no response that is allowed by a man that dfoesn't picture him as the bad guy. As very well illistrated by the overly defensive response to a woman who reasonably was accused of fare evasion. The only sympathy went to the woman and the man was assumed to be wrong and bullying.

You obviously have no tact then. QUite simlpy, if someone starts crying you direct them somewhere quieter, try to calm them down and be diplomatic if you cannot back down. You don't scream "J'accuse theif theif theif!" in front of a f*cking audience.

MorningStar

Lemming
I don't get why you would take a 3rd hand information which is obviously written with one person being painted as completely in the wrong and the other in the right and then suspend all concept of reason or reality.
The woman was upset over being accused of fair evasion. Is it probable her account from an upset state of mind will recount the event accurately? As far as I am concerned it is unlikely she would. Is it probable after her son being told this would recount what his mother said verbatim or accurately? I think this is equally unlikely. These two known facts make it extremely unlikely that it can be established that the inspector did not take her to the side over lack of ticket. I have seen inspectors put people to the side and continue to deal with customers and then return to those without tickets. Making a public show of somebody by an inspector has never been seen by me or have I heard of it. I have seen people making a scene over the accusation. The people doing it to themselves!
You seem to be unable to get the points in time I am talking about without taking in the whole story. I don't know about you but I expect the inspector works in a linear time line. The point is in day to day life it is normal to expect an accusation of somthing at some point when you are innocent. It would be normal to expect an adult to be able to deal with this without losing control as far as I am concerned.
The only reason I can see why you are so defensive for this woman is because you have additional sympathy for her becasue she cried which is my whole point. You accused me of having no empathy and I pointed out that you have none for the man doing his job which means you have no more or less than me. You don't see that my empathy is based on logic and reason, I believe this woman should have been able to control herself and she would not have humiliated herself! The only points that matter should be the ones that lead to this woman crying not whether she was right or not. I think it is a major accusation and assumption that a guy doing his job is out to bully people and more likely that this woman got upset unnesarily. The action of the inspector after she cried appear to beyond his call of duty (no need to go to the station) and she choose to go with him not forced so if she was bullied why would she go. I think you are making unlikely jumps based on a predjudiced statement which you can keep to yourself now.
I started this thread to see why people think women crying is so acceptable not debate another thread. If you favour the woman in the story post it there. If you think it is reaonable that a woman cry in normal situations is acceptable you can say that otherwise you aren't really contributing.

Earthhorse

From the original thread:

One of the inspectors takes her to one side and asks for her name and address.

So it would appear that the inspector did make some effort to do this discreetly.

But there's little point in rehashing that thread again here. You can never know all the details of stories like these and debating them just results in ever repeating circles.

Zombrex

Is there any evidence this woman started crying to get out of paying the ticket fine??

If not, then what the hell is the point of this thread.

It is hardly news that woman (and men) can be passive aggresive. At the same time not every person who cries is doing it cause they are being passive aggressive. They could just be upset.

Besides as far as I can tell from threat the woman was "close to tears", she was hardly blubbering her eyes out on the ticket inspectors shirt. And even if she was I still don't see what is wrong about that except it is very embarrasing for the person crying

MorningStar

Wicknight wrote:

Is there any evidence this woman started crying to get out of paying the ticket fine??

If not, then what the hell is the point of this thread.

It is hardly news that woman (and men) can be passive aggresive. At the same time not every person who cries is doing it cause they are being passive aggressive. They could just be upset.

Besides as far as I can tell from threat the woman was "close to tears", she was hardly blubbering her eyes out on the ticket inspectors shirt. And even if she was I still don't see what is wrong about that except it is very embarrasing for the person crying

THe point is control not the assumption that everybody is faking crying but they should be able to control emotional responses. Read the initial post and it points out there is problem with crying for what ever reason just becasue it is a woman it seems to be accepted. It doesn't seem like equality to me and that men in front of a crying woman seem to be assumed to be at fault. The main issue is not crying intentionally but the inability to think straight under pressure. The other part of the issue is that some people use crying intentionally because of how people feel about a woman crying

lazydaisy

MS,

Are you saying that you want it to be just as acceptable for men to cry publically? I don't understand what harm you think it does to anyone.

MorningStar

lazydaisy wrote:

MS,

Are you saying that you want it to be just as acceptable for men to cry publically? I don't understand what harm you think it does to anyone.

I ask the question why is acceptable for woman to lose control?
THe harm is that mena are assumed to be wrong and there is little or no way to handle it without being assumed to be in the wrong. It is also possible people do this intentionally to get around people.
It is more why you think it is acceptable rather than why I don't. It is expected that people don't lose control and rant and rave so why is the reverse acceptable. They are the same loss of control!! I expect adults to act like adults not children.

lazydaisy

Get over it. Its entirely about why you DONT think its acceptable. If you cant deal with seeing someone cry that's your problem. Seek counselling.

Ranting and raving are not the same as crying. They imply aggression. Crying is not aggressive.

If you want adults to act like adults, then a good place to start would be with yourself. What is your problem? When you're with someone who's crying you're worried what people are thinking about you? Talk about narcissistic. You're so mean, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking its your fault.

HelterSkelter

MorningStar, will you just accept that women are different to men, we are made differently both emotionally and physically. A lot of women cry when they're upset, men tend not to. It's a fact of life (like the fact that most women can't reverse into a parking space!), get over it will you.

MorningStar

lazydaisy wrote:

Get over it. Its entirely about why you DONT think its acceptable. If you cant deal with seeing someone cry that's your problem. Seek counselling.

Ranting and raving are not the same as crying. They imply aggression. Crying is not aggressive.

If you want adults to act like adults, then a good place to start would be with yourself. What is your problem? When you're with someone who's crying you're worried what people are thinking about you? Talk about narcissistic. You're so mean, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking its your fault.

That is pathetic. You can't justify any reason other than I should just accept it. As I was not the inspector I am showing concern for him over how people percieve him.
Why you had to think I was only thinking of myself probaly says more about your narcissistic tendencies.
How do you deal if a woman if she starts crying for a normal or understable situation?

The Corinthian

Reading through this thread, what people are dancing around (using specific examples) is the difference in attitude that exists towards man and women controlling their emotions. Given the effects of testosterone, I can understand where this comes from historically, but does that make it acceptable for women to act in an anti-social fashion either?

Crying is actually a mild, if common example, but you’ll actually find that women are far more likely to resort to violence than men in arguments (the old cliché of a slap across the face). The worst case, of course, involves those women who make no attempts to control mood swings just before menstruation - there are various dietary supplements that can make huge differences in this.

Is this acceptable behaviour? If it is, then perhaps we should consider repealing female emancipation.

lazydaisy

Because MS your real concern here seems to be how people are perceiving the man, and not how stressed or sad the person crying is.

Yes you should accept it. What are you going to do, make a law that prohibits women from crying? Go up to women you see crying and tell them to stop it because its bothering you? You cant control it so accept it. Welcome to adulthood.

Corinthian, Im not even going to address your blatant sexist remarks.Why dont you focus on all the anti-social behavior women have to put up with from men. It goes both ways you know.

If you guys dont like women, you should go to the homosexual forum. Im sure if you find the gay man section there wont be any women around to bother you with their tears and mood swings.

Zombrex

MorningStar wrote:

THe point is control not the assumption that everybody is faking crying but they should be able to control emotional responses.

How do you not cry?

Crying is not a voluntary response, as far as I know. It is very hard to stop yourself crying in the same way it is very hard to stop yourself laughing.

It is nothing like shouting or getting aggressive.

MorningStar wrote:

It doesn't seem like equality to me and that men in front of a crying woman seem to be assumed to be at fault.

Assumed by who? This is a ridiculously general statement.

Are you talking about the specific case in point, cause if you believe the fare inspecters weren't at fault that is fair enough.

But I fail to see how a general arugment or point can be taken from this example. Every instance would be different. Simply saying it is not acceptable for women to cry in front of men so other people don't think the men are responsible is silly (IMHO).

MorningStar wrote:

The other part of the issue is that some people use crying intentionally because of how people feel about a woman crying

And ... ?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Reading through this thread, what people are dancing around (using specific examples) is the difference in attitude that exists towards man and women controlling their emotions. Given the effects of testosterone, I can understand where this comes from historically, but does that make it acceptable for women to act in an anti-social fashion either?

Crying is actually a mild, if common example, but you’ll actually find that women are far more likely to resort to violence than men in arguments (the old cliché of a slap across the face). The worst case, of course, involves those women who make no attempts to control mood swings just before menstruation - there are various dietary supplements that can make huge differences in this.

Is this acceptable behaviour? If it is, then perhaps we should consider repealing female emancipation.

I would agree that, in my experience, women are more likely to resort to getting aggressive and violent than men in public places. But I fail to see how this relates to crying.

Crying is not a form of aggression.

It can be a form of passive aggression, but so can laughter. To say generally crying is unacceptable (not saying you are TC) because it could be a form of passive aggression is ridiculous. You might as well say any form of laughing or smiling should be unacceptable in public because it might be a case where someone is laughing at someone else

lazydaisy

And how can crying be used intentionally and also be a display of a woman out of control? Makes no sense.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I would agree that, in my experience, women are more likely to resort to getting aggressive and violent than men in public places. But I fail to see how this relates to crying.

Read the first paragraph I wrote again.

Crying is not a form of aggression.

Masturbating in public is not a form of aggression. Farting in company is not a form of aggression. Picking you nose in front of another is not a form of aggression.

But it is disconcerting to those around you and thus is considered anti-social behaviour. Crying is often the same.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

And how can crying be used intentionally and also be a display of a woman out of control? Makes no sense.

Good point .. i have never met someone fake crying that you didn't instantly see thats what they were doing. It is normally obvious if someone is genuinely upset

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I have never met someone fake crying that you didn't instantly see thats what they were doing.

That's like suggesting that all frauds are discovered, because the only frauds we know of are the discovered ones.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

That's like suggesting that all frauds are discovered, because the only frauds we know of are the discovered ones.

No, the original point is like saying it shouldn't be acceptable to be friendly to people you just met because some people might be con-artists.

Zombrex

Crying in public is not unacceptable, even for a man. If I just found out that my mom and dad were dead would anyone here object if i started bawling on the DART?

The issue the OP seems to have is that you should have a very good reason for crying, and being hassled by ticket inspectors isn't, the OP's mind, a very good reason. So to the OP this woman was crying over nothing, and because crying makes others uncomfortable we demand people have a damn good reason for it.

The fact is though, the person crying isn't thinking "Damn, this isn't really a good enough reason, I am going to stop crying now" ... it doesn't work like that ... if they are upset they are upset.

it is more our issues with why crying makes other uncomfortable that should be looked at.