#MeToo has caught on, good thing or bad thing ?

Press_Start

professore wrote: »

I agree with you, except the part about that it's exclusively men who harass, and exclusively women who get harassed. It's more common that way, but by no means is it exclusive.

I never said that that's the case, but it is certanly the majority of cases. But yeah, it's just an example.

Note that I tried to stay gender neutral throughout the entire post, "people, person"

just used the genders as an example for the majority of cases.

professore

To get back to the original point, I think #MeToo should be a good thing, but can't help feeling that there are people, particularly celebrities, who are hijacking it to play the victim Olympics and publicise themselves with it - when if they had spoken out earlier could have saved lots of fellow actresses from sexual abuse.

Another thing is just using it to bash all men, or that only women are victims of abuse. That's just plain wrong and genuine misandry.

Other than that, for people who suffered genuine sexual harassment, and/or abuse - and I am under no illusions that there are many many people in this group, including everyone in this thread who has discussed it - it is a positive thing to realise you are not alone and can finally have it acknowledged in an open forum. I have huge sympathy and support for you.

I don't think anyone in the 21st century believes otherwise apart from a few nutjobs.

professore

To expand on the context point, I was involved in a conversation recently with a woman who is not my wife, in a group context, where we talked about boobs, her dreaming about me in a sexual way, and her shoving her breasts in my direction, that was totally non creepy and hilarious - everyone was laughing so much we were crying, including my wife.

Another night we were out and a guy gave perfectly innocuous seeming compliments to a woman in our company, but he was 1000% creepy. So it is totally dependent on context.

If we ban all conversations like the former, life will be very dull indeed.

Press_Start

professore wrote: »

So it is totally dependent on context.

You're goddamn right. I can say "creepy things" to the girls I'm good friends with and they know it's a bit of craic. I've told my girlfriends best friend she has nice tits in the company of my missus and friends when it was "appropirate". My housemate has a "banter" style of conversation with his workmates where they talk like that, but noone seems to have any offense.

Out of context I told a young women she has a great pair of tits, and would be considered harrassment or innapropriate.

Likewise with my housemate. Out of context it'd be the different.

I think it's the intent as well as the context. Why did I say it? To make her feel better, she was complaining about her body.
If I said it to a random women, she'll think I'm after something more sinister or some alterior motives.

There's more to be said alongside motive and intent as well as context.

professore

Press_Start wrote: »

You're goddamn right. I can say "creepy things" to the girls I'm good friends with and they know it's a bit of craic. I've told my girlfriends best friend she has nice tits in the company of my missus and friends when it was "appropirate".

Never gone THAT far myself ... but I take your point.

professore

On the other extreme, there are people I know who would be offended if someone used the word "fart" in any context. So it really varies.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Monica Lewinsky tweeted this.

I know there are loads of rumours about Bill but I thought what occurred between him and Lewinsky was consensual?

Or is that Clinton promised her a promotion in return for sexual services?

Zulu

Press_Start wrote: »

You're goddamn right. I can say "creepy things" to the girls I'm good friends with and they know it's a bit of craic.

While I take your point, and agree with it, there are those out there who would adamantly cry "how do you know?"

How do you know that everyone there took it as a bit of craic? Perhaps someone there was brave-facing it, but inside felt really uncomfortable by your comments.

Zulu

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Monica Lewinsky tweeted this.
...

Has the hashtag already morphed into #regretsit

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

each to their own. I do approach women on the street, in a bookstore, etc. I've had plenty of women express that they weren't interested, and I didn't go any further. No worries. Smile politely, wish them a good day, and go about my business elsewhere. Just as I've had women express their thanks for the honest compliment or women who were happy to go for a coffee with me.

The key is the manner in which the approach is done. Politeness is everything.

It's not so much a problem in Ireland where as far as I know the vast vast majority of men would not randomly approach a woman. But my sister is in the US and it's incredibly common over there. At first she found it amusing that someone would ask for her number while queueing in the bank but it gets to the stage where she just wants to get through one day without a guy cracking onto her on the subway or while she's out for a jog. I've been on the phone to her while she's out for a walk hearing her telling a guy to go away as he approaches her because she knows what's coming.

Now your behaviour probably doesn't upset anyone as it's rare in Ireland. But if it is so normal and acceptable it should be ok for more guys to do it. And then you have a situation where women would be annoyed by your behaviour because it happens to them so often. The truth is it's not really acceptable and polite in Ireland. It's just rare. And if you're walking away straight after you've no idea if she's actually upset or happy that you approached her.

Sure, that's an easy example. There's more than simply relying on body language there. There are loads of examples of how women can show they have absolutely no interest in a guy... and the guy should recognise it. I'm not disagreeing about that. But body language is still not a reliable guide.

Can you give an example where you think a woman who subsequently expressed an annoyance at being approached did not communicate it adequately in her body language. The signs are as I stated and they're universal. I've seen them many a time. It is an easy example and it's the most common one.

So, for you, an honest compliment without any expectation of more is now creepy. Gotcha.

If it's to a complete randomers then yes. Absolutely.

And I agree. These guys rarely withdraw. But these guys do not represent the majority. Do you genuinely believe that most men behave that way? Being rude and persisting in the face of lack of interest?

Never said the majority of men do this. I'm a man and I don't. The question is whether it's acceptable for the men who do do this to do it. I'm saying it's not.

Why not? I've had women do it to me. All without any expectation beyond getting to know each other. Or establishing if there is/can be interest/attraction.

Because its creepy.

I'm not suggesting that other men behave as I do.

Good. I'd hate to see it become common in Ireland.

And while all these claims that men donI wonder how many of those relationships would have occured if the guy was so fearful of offending the girl simply by asking her out?

I've been pretty clear that I'm not expecting men to never ask a woman out. I've talked about appropriate situations to do it in.

I have no idea the connection of arranged marriages to this topic.

The point is that just because something can occasionally result in a. Happy relationship does not mean that behaviour or tradition is a good thing In general.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Monica Lewinsky tweeted this.

I know there are loads of rumours about Bill but I thought what occurred between him and Lewinsky was consensual?

Or is that Clinton promised her a promotion in return for sexual services?

It's probably unconnected. There are plenty who would have considered Monica fair game after the scandal.

Zulu

Candie wrote: »

It's probably unconnected. There are plenty who would have considered Monica fair game after the scandal.

excellent point actually

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Eh, what are you babbling on about? Have you confused me with someone else? I'm fairly certain I know the difference between what reasonable minded folks would consider to be 'a creepy one'. Not sure you do though, as you've specifically said that approaching a woman (which would like start with a simple hello or comment) and actually striking up a conversation is 'creepy'. That's a really odd viewpoint.

As for women not being able to win, not sure really sure what you're on about. I also made no such claim that 'they liked it'. But I'm fairly certain millions of relationships would never have happened if guys (or girls) hadn't struck up a conversation with a stranger.

You do know that there are many, many women who you know.. join gyms, take up activities and a whole host of other things to meet people, including a potential partner (and guys likewise).

You seem to be pointing towards this #metoo as some kind of definitive list of how all women do NOT like to be approached. Maybe we should set up a #yesplease hashtag as an experiment to see how women (and men) DO like to be approached, so we can avoid all this nastiness in the future.

Perhaps you have mad some damaging encounters that have tainted your viewpoint, but saying that a guy (or girl) striking up a conversation with someone they don't yet know, is creepy by default.. well that's a rather depressing point of view. Are there some rules we need to make law governing social behavior when it comes to interacting with a potential new partner?

Dunno how many times I have to repeat this with how.many examples. Not all approaches are creepy. But if you're at a bus stop, maybe a few metres away from a woman, she hasn't looked at your made any inviting eye contact, you walk up to her and say hello and start chatting ignoring the non attractive men and women at the bus stop. Would you do that?

And I think youre vastly.overstating how many relationships are struck up from this method. All the ones I know were friends first, worked together (with previous flirty interactions ), internet dating, etc.

And women as far as I'm aware rarely join gyms to meet men. They'll either work out alone (in which case many would consider a random approach to be creepy) or go to classes. Sure there are more social gym stuff like CrossFit but they'd have a wide social element with men interacting with other men etc. Not just cold approaches.

I've no damaging encounters.

neonsofa

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Monica Lewinsky tweeted this.

I know there are loads of rumours about Bill but I thought what occurred between him and Lewinsky was consensual?

Or is that Clinton promised her a promotion in return for sexual services?

She tweeted #metoo?
Unless she stated it was about Bill, I'd say it's not in relation to him.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Candie wrote: »

It's probably unconnected. There are plenty who would have considered Monica fair game after the scandal.

Pretty sure it is the Clinton incident. She gives talks about being the first person to be publicly shamed on the internet.

neonsofa

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Pretty sure it is the Clinton incident. She gives talks about being the first person to be publicly shamed on the internet.

Publicly shamed is not the same as sexually assaulted and if she's referring to those that shamed her then it's still not about bill?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not so much a problem in Ireland where as far as I know the vast vast majority of men would not randomly approach a woman. But my sister is in the US and it's incredibly common over there. At first she found it amusing that someone would ask for her number while queueing in the bank but it gets to the stage where she just wants to get through one day without a guy cracking onto her on the subway or while she's out for a jog. I've been on the phone to her while she's out for a walk hearing her telling a guy to go away as he approaches her because she knows what's coming.

I've spent time in a variety of states in the US, and I think it's a rather strange place. Full of extreme views and loads upon loads of minority groups/associations all believing they have the right to speak their piece/do their thing.

It's also a breeding ground for the PUA scene and seducton.alt.fast ideologies regarding dating. I wouldn't hold up the states as being a comfortable environment for dating... for men or women.

Now your behaviour probably doesn't upset anyone as it's rare in Ireland. But if it is so normal and acceptable it should be ok for more guys to do it. And then you have a situation where women would be annoyed by your behaviour because it happens to them so often. The truth is it's not really acceptable and polite in Ireland. It's just rare. And if you're walking away straight after you've no idea if she's actually upset or happy that you approached her.

Ireland has more of the tradition that dating is done in bars & clubs with introductions from family/friends coming a close second. I never enjoyed the bar/club scene in Ireland, and I've never liked the emphasis on drinking for dating. "Want to go for a drink?" Not my thing.

My way works because I'm polite. I'm not getting angry/offended because someone refuses my attention. If I meet someone who is hostile, I walk away. Simple as that.

And I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm walking away without finding out her reaction. I'm not simply dive-bombing her with a compliment & running away blushing at my audacity. I gauge her reaction from her words. Women in Ireland are generally not shy about expressing their opinions on something.

Can you give an example where you think a woman who subsequently expressed an annoyance at being approached did not communicate it adequately in her body language. The signs are as I stated and they're universal. I've seen them many a time. It is an easy example and it's the most common one.

Body language is often based on culture. Approach someone from a culture or background different from yours and you will get different visual cues. That problem is compounded depending on how much she has travelled, who her friends, idols, etc, are.

I'm not saying you can't see the reaction in another person. But body language alone is not an accurate guide. TBH Most women I've met are very capable of verbally saying how they feel. It's not difficult to say "i have a boyfriend" or "I'm not interested".

Granted that there are guys who are persistant and won't stop to such an answer, but the vast majority of guys will.

If it's to a complete randomers then yes. Absolutely.

Okie dokie. As I said, different perspectives.

Never said the majority of men do this. I'm a man and I don't. The question is whether it's acceptable for the men who do do this to do it. I'm saying it's not.

And I agree with you... however I object to the portrayal of our gender as being guilty without reinforcing that it is still a minority behaving in such a bad manner. Claiming that sexual harassment is a widespread problem without providing statistical evidence is suggesting that the majority are guilty...

Because its creepy.

For you. For another person, it might not be. There's plenty of things that I find distasteful that other find cute or romantic. My perception is not king.

If we're going to promote the belief in individuals, then we must also accept that many people have different measures of whats acceptable and what is not. This is why we have the law. It (should) provides a clear definitive idea of what society wants.

Good. I'd hate to see it become common in Ireland.

Whereas while I disagree with your very broad stroke belief of what is creepy, I try not to judge others behavior except when it is breaking the law.

I've been pretty clear that I'm not expecting men to never ask a woman out. I've talked about appropriate situations to do it in.

Yup. Selected and limited venues approved by you. Can't agree. Most of the best loving couples I know (who have remained together) met randomly. Their own stories show how lucky they were, and very few of them met in the traditionally acceptable venues. (although honestly that could be a reflection of the type of friends I have. Doesn't change my perspective though.)

And I would put the bar/club scene to be far worse places for the safety of women, than approaching someone in a cafe/bookstore or even in a crowded street.

The point is that just because something can occasionally result in a. Happy relationship does not mean that behaviour or tradition is a good thing In general.

I don't agree. We are adults. We have a legal system in place to protect both genders, although there is still a bias in favor of women in certain areas.

There is always going to be a minority that refuses to behave well... male/female/other, and I don't believe in restricting the majority because of a few twats. Social change takes time, and our society is changing regarding the rights of all genders.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

professore

Let's be honest, it's kind of hard to force someone to give you a blowjob. All you got to do is clamp your jaws shut on the offending member. If Monica Lewinsky is referring to Bill Clinton with MeToo, that is ridiculous.

She was hung out to dry though. Ole Bill was quite the creep

professore

professore wrote: »

Let's be honest, it's kind of hard to force someone to give you a blowjob. All you got to do is clamp your jaws shut on the offending member. If Monica Lewinsky is referring to Bill Clinton with MeToo, that is ridiculous.

She was hung out to dry though. Ole Bill was quite the creep

I suspect Hilary had more to say about it that ole Bill. Do we include her as being a creep?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you comparing words on a screen with the face-to-face interactions I was talking about?

No-one can force you to read their posts, you can either put them on ignore or just scroll on by.

No matter how much you dislike and disagree with a person's posts, they cannot actually pop out of the screen and attack you.

The same cannot be said about a person who is standing right there in front of you.

I know that you know this perfectly well.

Yes, I treat online interactions the same way I treat offline interactions, and so when someone says something I think isn't right, I'll either dismiss it out of hand, or I'll challenge it, regardless as you say of who says it or writes it or whatever. I won't waste time with someone who's just saying or posting crap for the sake of it, and that's why I generally like I said earlier, avoid twitter, the digital equivalent of syphilis.

B0jangles wrote: »

The part of Kylith's post you chose to highlight was putting in clear and simple terms the basic advice that women are given all the time - be wary, be watchful, don't put yourself in risky situations.
You see versions of it all the time in this very forum, in the slightly disguised but oh so familiar form of the unlocked car analogy.

The part of kylith's post I highlighted was this -

Every man on a quiet street is a potential threat
Every man walking behind us could be a rapist
Men we don't know are threats
Men we do know are even bigger threats
The single biggest threat to women is men

That's the one and only part I called crap, because it is crap. The rest of her post I could completely understand where she was coming from. Now in terms of what passes for 'advice' given to women on here 'to protect themselves', I've also questioned that crap, because it is crap, and the motivation behind it is transparent as glass, particularly in the recent thread on George Hook's 'musings'. There's no polite way to say someone is talking shyte, when they really are talking ****e, or posting shyte, but I don't waste time with the car analogy crap coming from someone who's opinion I can already see is not for changing.

B0jangles wrote: »

Women are expected to simultaneously be conscious of the fact that this is a dangerous world and, for example, not to expect to be able to walk down dark streets in perfect safety but at the same time, they are paranoid and unfair and mean if they are wary of men. The core message seems to be

'Life's unfair and tough, it's foolish to think you can leave your car analogy (ie body) unlocked and not have it stolen, but at the same time you ought to trust ME because I told you I'm trustworthy'

I don't fcuking trust myself most of the time so no, I wouldn't expect any woman to trust me tbh :pac: However, having said that, I do know where you're coming from, and as I've always said when that sort of 'advice' is doled out - what woman is expected to take that seriously? It's bull****, and the person saying it knows bloody well that women aren't going to take it seriously. It's a transparent attempt to shift the responsibility for the actions of the person who did wrong, onto the person they wronged.

At the same time, this is why I was questioning the idea behind statements like this -

Every man on a quiet street is a potential threat
Every man walking behind us could be a rapist
Men we don't know are threats
Men we do know are even bigger threats
The single biggest threat to women is men

You're asking people to challenge crap, but the crap you agree with should be allowed a free pass. I really don't work like that, my bullshít detector is gender neutral.

dudara wrote: »

What she has posted is not cr*p as far as a lot of women are concerned. I think you would have to search extremely hard to find one woman on the planet who has not been made feel uncomfortable by a man at some stage.

That's not the part of kylith's post I was saying was crap. Of course it's not, and I completely understood where she was coming from. It's the next bit caused a wtf? moment, this -

Every man on a quiet street is a potential threat
Every man walking behind us could be a rapist
Men we don't know are threats
Men we do know are even bigger threats
The single biggest threat to women is men

dudara wrote: »

This does not mean that all men are sex-pests or rapists - far from it - and I definitely do not subscribe to that line of thought.

I really don't know how else anyone is supposed to interpret that? How is that saying anything other than suggesting all men are sex-pests or rapists? Sorry, "potential" threat, "could" be a rapist. I'd respectfully suggest someone with that mentality should really seek professional help, because that kind of thinking just isn't normal, and it's certainly not the kind of thinking I would be encouraging in girls and young women.

It's the sort of stuff though that is encouraged on social media and a minority (thankfully) of girls and young women incorporate it into their thinking, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy - they become more anxious and so... hyper-aware, to the point where it's exhausting, mentally and physically. It's debilitating, and it affects the way they interact with the opposite sex, who are indeed their families, their friends, their co-workers, their boyfriends, their husbands... basically they do indeed come to look at every man as a potential threat to their safety and well-being, when the reality is that the kind of horror stories they read on social media are actually incredibly unlikely ever to happen to them. It's the mere thought of it though, has them in that state of mind where they believe they have to be hyper-vigilant 24/7, and it's reinforced through confirmation bias.

dudara wrote: »

I do think though that men can be oblivious at times to the amount of cr*p women put up with from men. See, the rapist in a dark alleyway scenario is easier to understand. It's a clear threat situation and we all (men/women) can picture that. For me, the problem is the far more insidious type incidents.

My personal experiences aren't the worst but I bet you that they're probably far more common than the rapist scenario:

...

For me, I just want the men in my life to be aware that this cr*p happens. Call it out when you see it. I can deal with it, but not everyone can.

They're quite aware of it already, you don't get to be 40 years of age and not be aware of these things. Hell you learn these things from the moment you're born, it's never had to be explicitly explained to people because they learn social standards from everyone in their lives, not just their parents or their peers. Some men simply choose to disregard what they've learned throughout their lives, and they aren't going to be told any different, by anyone, either man nor woman, and they're certainly not going to listen to women on social media who are asking them to stop, thinking that a hashtag or telling of their experiences of those type of men is actually going to stop them or have them consider the repercussions of their behaviour.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

About the original topic, I don't really see how it is "dangerous" it's not like people aren't going to have some level of awareness of this stuff from personal conversations and interactions.

What I do see is that it might be a bit pointless though, for example facebook friend A is "sensitive"/drama ish, posts #metoo, Facebook friend B (who's pretty lefty) posts #metoo has privately talked about a very very serious ( non PC due to identity of aggressor) incident in their youth.
When one looks at other posts you have no idea of the severity, I think most men will have experienced some level of sexual harassment in their youth in messy nightclubs/bars when one looks at the floods of #metoo posts is one meant to think it's more like A or B or one's own experience as a guy.

In terms of harassment/cold approaches as a guy I have not really understood how some women seem to be a magnet for this type of behaviour while others who are just as physically attractive seem to avoid it nearly completely.

I know myself I get annoyed in the fact that the whole ass pinching stuff/unwelcome physical contact stuff and aggressive come ons from older women stopped when I was slightly older and more physically imposing (ironically also better with women) but as an outside observer I often don't see why X receives lots of harassment while Y is ignored

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I treat online interactions the same way I treat offline interactions, and so when someone says something I think isn't right, I'll either dismiss it out of hand, or I'll challenge it, regardless as you say of who says it or writes it or whatever. I won't waste time with someone who's just saying or posting crap for the sake of it, and that's why I generally like I said earlier, avoid twitter, the digital equivalent of syphilis.





The part of kylith's post I highlighted was this -





That's the one and only part I called crap, because it is crap. The rest of her post I could completely understand where she was coming from. Now in terms of what passes for 'advice' given to women on here 'to protect themselves', I've also questioned that crap, because it is crap, and the motivation behind it is transparent as glass, particularly in the recent thread on George Hook's 'musings'. There's no polite way to say someone is talking shyte, when they really are talking ****e, or posting shyte, but I don't waste time with the car analogy crap coming from someone who's opinion I can already see is not for changing.


I don't fcuking trust myself most of the time so no, I wouldn't expect any woman to trust me tbh :pac: However, having said that, I do know where you're coming from, and as I've always said when that sort of 'advice' is doled out - what woman is expected to take that seriously? It's bull****, and the person saying it knows bloody well that women aren't going to take it seriously. It's a transparent attempt to shift the responsibility for the actions of the person who did wrong, onto the person they wronged.

At the same time, this is why I was questioning the idea behind statements like this -


You're asking people to challenge crap, but the crap you agree with should be allowed a free pass. I really don't work like that, my bullshít detector is gender neutral.

That's not the part of kylith's post I was saying was crap. Of course it's not, and I completely understood where she was coming from. It's the next bit caused a wtf? moment, this -


I really don't know how else anyone is supposed to interpret that? How is that saying anything other than suggesting all men are sex-pests or rapists? Sorry, "potential" threat, "could" be a rapist. I'd respectfully suggest someone with that mentality should really seek professional help, because that kind of thinking just isn't normal, and it's certainly not the kind of thinking I would be encouraging in girls and young women.

It's the sort of stuff though that is encouraged on social media and a minority (thankfully) of girls and young women incorporate it into their thinking, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy - they become more anxious and so... hyper-aware, to the point where it's exhausting, mentally and physically. It's debilitating, and it affects the way they interact with the opposite sex, who are indeed their families, their friends, their co-workers, their boyfriends, their husbands... basically they do indeed come to look at every man as a potential threat to their safety and well-being, when the reality is that the kind of horror stories they read on social media are actually incredibly unlikely ever to happen to them. It's the mere thought of it though, has them in that state of mind where they believe they have to be hyper-vigilant 24/7, and it's reinforced through confirmation bias.

They're quite aware of it already, you don't get to be 40 years of age and not be aware of these things. Hell you learn these things from the moment you're born, it's never had to be explicitly explained to people because they learn social standards from everyone in their lives, not just their parents or their peers. Some men simply choose to disregard what they've learned throughout their lives, and they aren't going to be told any different, by anyone, either man nor woman, and they're certainly not going to listen to women on social media who are asking them to stop, thinking that a hashtag or telling of their experiences of those type of men is actually going to stop them or have them consider the repercussions of their behaviour.

Jack, I'll be honest I had to read your post 4 times before I could make sense of it, and I still think you are missing the point by a large margin.

Whether such the actual risk justifies such caution, the majority of women are brought up to be very aware of their surroundings, to be aware of the importance of not being in isolated places by themselves, to be aware if someone might be following them at night and so on.

That is the common experience of most women. You can handwave it away as nonsense all you like but you will always be speaking from a position of ignorance.

That you think it's a recent phenomenon that is somehow linked to social media shows just how little you know. The first advice I got on the subject was when I was about ten, and it was from my grandmother (born 1912). She was passing on things that her own mother had told her.

Bambi985

The first time I recall receiving a scary level of male attention was when I was on J1 in New Jersey as an 18 year old and couldn't walk down the street without being gawked at, yelled at, whistled at, cat called and even followed. I'd have to say that America is a hotbed of activity for this and to completely generalise, a lot more sexist. Some parts are worse than others obviously, but walking through the streets of New York on your own as a woman can be bloody eye-opening.

There's cultural aspects to it too, certain ethnic communities are more susceptible to it, I even see it in London when the prolonged stares and cold approaches will most often be African or Asian men.

It certainly isn't a socially acceptable way to talk to women in Ireland, but I have to say when you live in a country where "cold approaches" are the norm and every man on the street is viewing you as a potential conquest, it gets bloody old very fast. The majority of women - especially Irish women - are not going to respond positively to that. I'd compare it to chuggers - who's ever happy to be faced with an over-enthusiastic head yelling about famine in Africa and trying to get money off you when you're trying to get from A to B? Probably 2 percent of people at a conservative guess.

And as with chuggers, it's not illegal, I wouldn't label it sexual harassment (except for the following or the ones that don't take no for an answer) but I'm always dismayed when people try to encourage it as a way of meeting women because the vast majority of women don't leave the house hoping or expecting to be picked up or to have their appearance commented upon freely and when they respond negatively to it out roll the "Irish women are beeatches" remarks and round and round we go.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've spent time in a variety of states in the US, and I think it's a rather strange place. Full of extreme views and loads upon loads of minority groups/associations all believing they have the right to speak their piece/do their thing.

It's also a breeding ground for the PUA scene and seducton.alt.fast ideologies regarding dating. I wouldn't hold up the states as being a comfortable environment for dating... for men or women.

You seem to be avoiding my point. The dating scene in the US isn't all PUA. What annoys my sister, and I'm guessing most women , are the constant approaches. If a significant amount of men behave like you it quickly becomes a very negative environment. You're trying to find any reason why the US dating scene (which is basically many men acting in the way you act) is dysfunctional while avoiding the most obvious reason.

[/Quote]

My way works because I'm polite. I'm not getting angry/offended because someone refuses my attention. If I meet someone who is hostile, I walk away. Simple as that.

Just because you think you're not bothering women doesn't mean you're not. My friend who was harassed if you remember the example I gave, wasn't rude to the guy, she didn't get angry and tell him to feck off. He probably thinks his behaviour was fine and had no effect on her because he wasnt abusive. She still had to leave the area to avoid him though.

I'm not saying you dive bomb. But if a woman says no thank you to you and you go "can't blame a guy for trying" and move on you've no idea if it bothered her or not. The fact that you were polite does not mean she found it a positive or neutral experience.

Body language is often based on culture. Approach someone from a culture or background different from yours and you will get different visual cues. That problem is compounded depending on how much she has travelled, who her friends, idols, etc, are.

And in what exact culture does a woman looking annoyed grimacing and not partaking in conversation mean she's receptive to advances? I'd love to know

If it's confusing to you we can say that in Irish culture it means "leave me alone you Tool"

And I agree with you... however I object to the portrayal of our gender as being guilty without reinforcing that it is still a minority behaving in such a bad manner. Claiming that sexual harassment is a widespread problem without providing statistical evidence is suggesting that the majority are guilty...

What statistical data would you be happy with. Because it would have to be based on self reporting. Have you harassed a woman it are you a woman who has been harassed. No man is going to admit he harassed and it's clear from the reaction to #metoo that you'd try to minimize women's self reported experiences.

Yup. Selected and limited venues approved by you. Can't agree. Most of the best loving couples I know (who have remained together) met randomly. Their own stories show how lucky they were, and very few of them met in the traditionally acceptable venues. (although honestly that could be a reflection of the type of friends I have. Doesn't change my perspective though.)

And I would put the bar/club scene to be far worse places for the safety of women, than approaching someone in a cafe/bookstore or even in a crowded street.

So most of the couple's you know was a case of a man randomly approaching a woman with no prior interaction and no reason to believe she was interested? Could you give 3 short examples? Because I find that extremely hard to believe.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Jack, I'll be honest I had to read your post 4 times before I could make sense of it, and I still think you are missing the point by a large margin.

Whether such the actual risk justifies such caution, the majority of women are brought up to be very aware of their surroundings, to be aware of the importance of not being in isolated places by themselves, to be aware if someone might be following them at night and so on.

That is the common experience of most women. You can handwave it away as nonsense all you like but you will always be speaking from a position of ignorance.

That you think it's a recent phenomenon that is somehow linked to social media shows just how little you know. The first advice I got on the subject was when I was about ten, and it was from my grandmother (born 1912). She was passing on things that her own mother had told her.

I didn't handwave it away first of all, and second of all because women aren't generally raised in isolated bubbles by themselves away from all men, I'm certainly not speaking from a position of ignorance. I'm quite aware of what women learn too from their parents, their peers, their friends, their co-workers and so on.

Are you seriously suggesting that your mother learned this from her mother -


Every man on a quiet street is a potential threat
Every man walking behind us could be a rapist
Men we don't know are threats
Men we do know are even bigger threats
The single biggest threat to women is men


I know that only a vanishingly small minority of women have ever thought that of men, and thought it long before your grandmothers time too.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding my point. The dating scene in the US isn't all PUA. What annoys my sister, and I'm guessing most women , are the constant approaches. If a significant amount of men behave like you it quickly becomes a very negative environment. You're trying to find any reason why the US dating scene (which is basically many men acting in the way you act) is dysfunctional while avoiding the most obvious reason.

Nope. Not avoiding your point. TBH I didn't see your point in raising the US, and spoke about the US being stranger than, say, Europe.

You're suggesting that the constant approaches by men towards women can become annoying, and I'm sure that's true. For others, they might enjoy the attention. You're trying to paint all women as being tired of the attention they receive...

As for people behaving like me (I just love your negative perception of how I meet women), Spain and Italy have very strong cultures where women are approached anywhere. Same with my experiences in Eastern Europe and Asia. Doesn't seem to bother them much. At least, while i have been politely turned down there, I have never received any strong negative reactions.

Just because you think you're not bothering women doesn't mean you're not.

I'm sorry but that's just funny. You can apply that reasoning to everything.

My friend who was harassed if you remember the example I gave, wasn't rude to the guy, she didn't get angry and tell him to feck off. He probably thinks his behaviour was fine and had no effect on her because he wasnt abusive. She still had to leave the area to avoid him though.

Your example spoke of a guy who wouldn't stop pestering her though. I've already said that I leave her be if I get a rejection. Different scenario entirely.

I'm not saying you dive bomb. But if a woman says no thank you to you and you go "can't blame a guy for trying" and move on you've no idea if it bothered her or not. The fact that you were polite does not mean she found it a positive or neutral experience.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on in her head even if she accepts my advances and agrees to go for a coffee with me. Saying that you can know is the height of arrogance.

Perhaps she was annoyed by my approaching her. I still didn't harass her. If you go around always afraid that you're annoying, you'll lead a very lonely life. The only thing you can do, is make the approach, be nice (regardless of the reaction), and not behave like a dick.

And in what exact culture does a woman looking annoyed grimacing and not partaking in conversation mean she's receptive to advances? I'd love to know

None. I didn't suggest that it was. You're pushing the angle that someone can always tell by her reaction (by using very specific examples), that body language is a perfectly simple way of knowing whats happening.

I have simply said that body language alone is not reliable.

If it's confusing to you we can say that in Irish culture it means "leave me alone you Tool"

And hence you reinforce my point. She can say that she is not interested. And without insulting the person. Insulting someone just increases the risk of it going pear shaped.

What statistical data would you be happy with. Because it would have to be based on self reporting. Have you harassed a woman it are you a woman who has been harassed. No man is going to admit he harassed and it's clear from the reaction to #metoo that you'd try to minimize women's self reported experiences.

Reports of claims made to the police, the number of claims verified as being true, when this harassment/abuse occured, which category of harassment/abuse it was, and where did it happen. etc.

At the moment, the metoo campaign is simply collecting unverified claims without any frame of reference for time. The claim could be something that happened 50 years ago, or five years ago. Also doesn't provide any suggestion as to whether it happened in Ireland, Africa or wherever.

So most of the couple's you know was a case of a man randomly approaching a woman with no prior interaction and no reason to believe she was interested? Could you give 3 short examples? Because I find that extremely hard to believe.

Why would I give you examples when you've just said you won't believe me? :rolleyes:

I get it. You don't like the idea of men approaching women in the street or anywhere outside of your approved venues. Your judgment shines throughout your post above. But the issue isn't with approaching women in the street. Many women do enjoy that kind of approach, and enjoy the attention. Some do, and some don't. That's life.

The issue is with certain men behaving like a dick, being impolite, and not respecting boundaries. If a woman says she's not interested, then the guy (or girl doing the approach) should bugger off. Simple.

EDIT:

it's clear from the reaction to #metoo that you'd try to minimize women's self reported experiences.

Where have I minimized any womans "reported" experiences? I have been consistent to asking that the claims be verified. That is not minimizing anything. I get that you don't agree with me... but seriously? Get off your imaginary moral high ground.

lazybones32

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The initial silence from the 'sisterhood' was truly indicitive of the feminist lobby's priorities. Bill was their man, and so what if he had 5 (alleged) affairs or was accused of sexual harassment by 3 or 4 different young women? He was pro-choice; was pro Affirmative Action and gave the feminist lobby a few more gestures, like appointing a woman to the Supreme Court and appointing women to high positions.

The 'victims' didn't matter then and don't matter now. The largest feminist organisations in America ridiculed and dismissed the women who claim they were assaulted by a powerful man.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.