|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Oct 23, 2013 19:50:45 GMT -5
Avoiding the use of mansplaining (ugh! Keep that s** on tumblr.), there is no other way that she could have reacted worse in this situation other than possibly hunting him down and murdering him. A bunch of men telling women how to react with respect to her personal agency and physical safety: what else do you call it but 'mansplaining'? Because if history has taught us anything, it's that men know what's best for women. Here comes another Tumblr term (brace yourself): male privilege. Because structurally, when a woman who goes about her business and her life without wanting undesired and unsolicited attention has to deal either with douchebag cat-calls or well-intentioned compliments ("I think you're cute"), these are basically the same phenomenon: a man exerts the privilege of being able to say whatever thought pops into his head to a woman precisely for the reason that he's a man. As such, is she suppose to acquiesce because it was a well-intentioned compliment, even though she didn't want to receive any male attention of a sexual nature? Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD. In this circumstance, saying to someone "I think you're cute" isn't about the other person, it's about you and how it makes you feel. In this sense, even though it's well-intentioned it's still disrespectful for the very reason that it's invasive. Which isn't to say that men and women can't talk to one another because that's a straw argument: in a situation where there is respect, mutually agreed upon terms of conversation, equality of discourse, and reciprocity of intent when partaking in the situation. A woman shouldn't have to put up with an unequal situation of power just because some man finds her to be hot especially in a situation when sexual attention or communication is not desired. Full stop. [why there was the invocation of the Constitution I'll never know... it's a silly argument that misunderstands 'right' as a positive/negative 'freedom to'/'freedom from' from that as 'right' as 'exertion', 'access', or, yes, 'privilege' of having the power as being able to do something, which as such entails when in what situation there exists the necessity ('imperative' or 'SHOULD') of ethical behaviour) (and if anyone wants a non-Tumblr explication: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/21/male-privilege)It's not like we live in a world where people who worry about their personal safety are labelled 'crazy bitches'. Especially when a woman behaves in a way that isn't approved of by a man. I'm just glad there isn't a man in this thread who has stooped to that level. Oops. For me the issue is quite simple: would you rather a situation 99 times out of 100 that some guy's feelings don't get reciprocated which he momentarily feels bad about, or the 1 time out of 100 when the threat of violence against a woman committed by a man whom she does not know is actualized? Is every man a threat? No. But when there's a cloud of uncertainty, as shown with the way this man contacts this person, how is it possibly reasonable for a woman to think, 'aw, well, he seems like a nice guy?' I can't help but feel that the point which Louis CK addresses in the video was missed if the above is in fact the case. Is it that hard to understand the difference between good context and bad context when it comes to social interactions between heterosexual men and women with the explicit understanding of courtship? In what universe is 'note on car from unknown man who apparently knows movement of woman asking for a date' usual? And furthermore acceptable? Obviously the answer would be 'one where women don't have to face the threat or reality of violence committed by men'. That's not this universe.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 19:57:04 GMT -5
Just because you find someone to be attractive does not mean that you have the right to tell this person as much (just because it makes YOU feel better to say it), let alone in such a creepy and awkward fashion. And the mansplaining of how this woman *ought* to have reacted evinced in this thread comes off as really problematic as well. So you think asking someone out is a cop-worthy offense then? And yes, you do have the right to tell someone how you really feel. It's sort of in this big document that outlines the core principals that the country was founded on. People trying to tell others what they don't have a right to say is more problematic to me than people trying to say she overreacted by calling the cops on someone who asked her out. Dude, that's not how the Constitution works. I'm sorry, but I'm a history teacher currently teaching my students how the First Amendment works, and that ain't it. I can understand some people seeing an overreaction here, but I also completely understand somebody seeing a note like that and thinking "some guy I've never seen has seen me, knows where I live, and has now contacted me indirectly, so I know nothing about him...that's pretty creepy." As Numero said, she did a pretty sensible thing: didn't ask for a restraining order, didn't ask for the guy to be arrested, but just wanted it known that she was contacted in what she felt was a creepy way. Not really a terrible idea. I do think it's sad for people to live in fear of things like that, because I wouldn't be surprised at all if the guy had pure-but-misguided intentions, but I can't blame her for feeling wary. And yes, telling a woman how she should react in a situation that we, as men, would have no idea about is actually the definition of "mansplaining".
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Oct 23, 2013 20:01:54 GMT -5
Lots of extremes in this thread, on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 20:03:46 GMT -5
God knows single women should definitely be more trusting towards strange men. So you think asking someone out is a cop-worthy offense then? And yes, you do have the right to tell someone how you really feel. It's sort of in this big document that outlines the core principals that the country was founded on. People trying to tell others what they don't have a right to say is more problematic to me than people trying to say she overreacted by calling the cops on someone who asked her out. Dude, that's not how the Constitution works. I'm sorry, but I'm a history teacher currently teaching my students how the First Amendment works, and that ain't it. I can understand some people seeing an overreaction here, but I also completely understand somebody seeing a note like that and thinking "some guy I've never seen has seen me, knows where I live, and has now contacted me indirectly, so I know nothing about him...that's pretty creepy." As Numero said, she did a pretty sensible thing: didn't ask for a restraining order, didn't ask for the guy to be arrested, but just wanted it known that she was contacted in what she felt was a creepy way. Not really a terrible idea. I do think it's sad for people to live in fear of things like that, because I wouldn't be surprised at all if the guy had pure-but-misguided intentions, but I can't blame her for feeling wary. And yes, telling a woman how she should react in a situation that we, as men, would have no idea about is actually the definition of "mansplaining". This is everything I want to say.
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Oct 23, 2013 20:06:07 GMT -5
I bought a new Jeep Wrangler this year and one day I came outside with this note on my windshield. It said "You have a nice Jeep, if you are interested in off-road tires, call this number for this business" not a card, just a piece of paper. Do I need to call the cops in fear of this person stalking me or stealing my Jeep?? That's where I'm lost because this person knows where I work (at the time) knows my Jeep, and saw my license plate, so with the logic from the lady in the story, I should file a report.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 20:11:49 GMT -5
I bought a new Jeep Wrangler this year and one day I came outside with this note on my windshield. It said "You have a nice Jeep, if you are interested in off-road tires, call this number for this business" not a card, just a piece of paper. Do I need to call the cops in fear of this person stalking me or stealing my Jeep?? That's where I'm lost because this person knows where I work (at the time) knows my Jeep, and saw my license plate, so with the logic from the lady in the story, I should file a report. No, because there's no implication that this person knows where you live or what you look like. That's a business solicitation, not a personal one...though if it happened again I'd certainly be inclined to let the cops know that some guy was hovering around my car. Also, you just compared a Jeep with a woman's physical safety and well-being. That's comparing apples with orangutans.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 20:15:13 GMT -5
So you think asking someone out is a cop-worthy offense then? And yes, you do have the right to tell someone how you really feel. It's sort of in this big document that outlines the core principals that the country was founded on. People trying to tell others what they don't have a right to say is more problematic to me than people trying to say she overreacted by calling the cops on someone who asked her out. Dude, that's not how the Constitution works. I'm sorry, but I'm a history teacher currently teaching my students how the First Amendment works, and that ain't it. I can understand some people seeing an overreaction here, but I also completely understand somebody seeing a note like that and thinking "some guy I've never seen has seen me, knows where I live, and has now contacted me indirectly, so I know nothing about him...that's pretty creepy." As Numero said, she did a pretty sensible thing: didn't ask for a restraining order, didn't ask for the guy to be arrested, but just wanted it known that she was contacted in what she felt was a creepy way. Not really a terrible idea. I do think it's sad for people to live in fear of things like that, because I wouldn't be surprised at all if the guy had pure-but-misguided intentions, but I can't blame her for feeling wary. And yes, telling a woman how she should react in a situation that we, as men, would have no idea about is actually the definition of "mansplaining". It actually is, you're just looking at it way too narrowly and not fully taking into account all of the implications and the context to what I said it to. The only way a private citizen could possibly take away the rights of another (and remember that I was responding to someone who claimed that you do not have the right to tell a woman how you really feel) would be to through the use of governmental action, such as the police, and the government, at any level, can't restrict your right to talk except in strict circumstances. We're not talking private business owner here, he's one person who only tried to make contact with another, and that is well within our rights implicitly due to the fact that no action of government could stop it. Her life is not an internet message board that she's the moderator of, if you go out in public, people other than you have the right to speak. So it still applies, there's no way you can't take away the rights of a stranger to try to talk you, and people claiming that you can are completely wrong. I took offense to the notion that NNNNNN believed people don't have the right to express themselves, that is a false and ridiculous notion, even among strangers. And if they're going to express it, then I don't see any issue with bringing up that people do have that right. For the mansplaining thing, it's a dumb notion to me. If you do something, there's nothing stopping anyone o any gender from having an opinion on it and expressing that opinion. Disagree with what they say, debate it if you wish, but to argue that they don't have grounds to express an opinion on someone's actions or use of public resources is just wrong. I could understand it if people were saying that strangers really have no business commenting on it, I'd agree with saying that we don't know any extenuating circumstances that could make her more cautious (maybe the apartment is in a bad area, maybe she has a history, maybe this is a thing that's been going on in the town), but to just say that only men can't have a certain opinion when men aren't the only ones to say it is just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Oct 23, 2013 20:16:45 GMT -5
I bought a new Jeep Wrangler this year and one day I came outside with this note on my windshield. It said "You have a nice Jeep, if you are interested in off-road tires, call this number for this business" not a card, just a piece of paper. Do I need to call the cops in fear of this person stalking me or stealing my Jeep?? That's where I'm lost because this person knows where I work (at the time) knows my Jeep, and saw my license plate, so with the logic from the lady in the story, I should file a report. I really hope this is some sort of parody of a completely absurd, ludicrous and point missing posting for the sake of it wanting-to-make-a-point-not-sure-why-i'm-angry type post you sometimes see with arguments like this
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Oct 23, 2013 20:19:16 GMT -5
I bought a new Jeep Wrangler this year and one day I came outside with this note on my windshield. It said "You have a nice Jeep, if you are interested in off-road tires, call this number for this business" not a card, just a piece of paper. Do I need to call the cops in fear of this person stalking me or stealing my Jeep?? That's where I'm lost because this person knows where I work (at the time) knows my Jeep, and saw my license plate, so with the logic from the lady in the story, I should file a report. No, because there's no implication that this person knows where you live or what you look like. That's a business solicitation, not a personal one...though if it happened again I'd certainly be inclined to let the cops know that some guy was hovering around my car. Also, you just compared a Jeep with a woman's physical safety and well-being. That's comparing apples with orangutans. I didn't mean to compare it in that sense, I apologize for that. I don't want to sound un-caring but this situation just comes off as over reaction the same way my mother used to call the cops every time my siblings disagreed with her. It's crying wolf when it's not needed and if this guy's name needs to be on a police record for a note, it's not fair. DrBackflipsHoffman My apology for dumb post.
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 62,166
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Oct 23, 2013 20:21:03 GMT -5
Well the definition of stalking is as follows act of steady harassment: the crime of harassing somebody with persistent, inappropriate, and unwanted attention. Maybe the lady didn't want his attention or felt it was inappropriate
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Oct 23, 2013 20:21:51 GMT -5
It's fair to assume the guy probably had honest intentions, but you'd have to be incredibly naive to not realise leaving an anonymous note like that wouldn't result in a call to the bacon squad
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 20:24:30 GMT -5
[why there was the invocation of the Constitution I'll never know... it's a silly argument that misunderstands 'right' as a positive/negative 'freedom to'/'freedom from' from that as 'right' as 'exertion', 'access', or, yes, 'privilege' of having the power as being able to do something, which as such entails when in what situation there exists the necessity ('imperative' or 'SHOULD') of ethical behaviour) It's not too complicated, when you express that people don't have a right to do something, it carries with it a certain implication and you need to understand where those rights actually come from and how they're applied. If you wished to say "Men should not go up to any random woman and speak their mind" then there'd have been no issue, because then we're talking about tact. To say that they have no right to carries more weight, and to me greatly misrepresents what a right truly is.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 20:26:28 GMT -5
For the mansplaining thing, it's a dumb notion to me. If you do something, there's nothing stopping anyone o any gender from having an opinion on it and expressing that opinion. Disagree with what they say, debate it if you wish, but to argue that they don't have grounds to express an opinion on someone's actions or use of public resources is just wrong. I could understand it if people were saying that strangers really have no business commenting on it, I'd agree with saying that we don't know any extenuating circumstances that could make her more cautious (maybe the apartment is in a bad area, maybe she has a history, maybe this is a thing that's been going on in the town), but to just say that only men can't have a certain opinion when men aren't the only ones to say it is just stupid. It's a perfectly sensible notion. If someone makes a point about quantum physics, and they're a professor in quantum physics, if I start trying to explain it to them because I think I have a better grasp of it, it's just silly. And it's the same here, men saying how she should have chosen another way to act and acting like she had no reason for the actions she took, without bothering to even think about it from the perspective of someone in that situation. It happens on a ton of other subjects, too. Heck, men want an opinion on what women do with their uteruses! Just like straight people have a view on what's the acceptable way for LGB people to act, like how cis people have views on how trans* people should act, etc. etc. And somehow, it always seems to be the group with the most power who think they have the most important views, and they're always the ones who get the most affronted when they're called on it. That's why mansplaining is a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 20:27:20 GMT -5
Avoiding the use of mansplaining (ugh! Keep that s** on tumblr.), there is no other way that she could have reacted worse in this situation other than possibly hunting him down and murdering him. A bunch of men telling women how to react with respect to her personal agency and physical safety: what else do you call it but 'mansplaining'? It really has nothing to do with the fact it's a woman that I call her a crazy bitch, and more that she did something crazy. Thus, crazy bitch. Same as a guy in a news stroy who is holding an armory cause he's worried about them coming to take it away and threatening people with violence, I'd call him a crazy bastard, too. Calling the cops for a note IS crazy. That's high school stuff to pass notes to people or leave them in lockers. It's asinine to call the cops and fear for any kind of safety over something as trivial as a note, a note that would contain nothing to show any kind of threat or justifiable worry. Thus, I call a person crazy for their reaction, regardless of sex or whatever else they may be. It's not the person that's mocked, it's the action they took. Why is this looked beyond that? Why is he seen as an automatic creep for this? Why is anyone acting like this is anything but a gross overreaction from someone who should know better? And, again, keep the dumb tumblr s*** ON TUMBLR. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 20:29:12 GMT -5
[why there was the invocation of the Constitution I'll never know... it's a silly argument that misunderstands 'right' as a positive/negative 'freedom to'/'freedom from' from that as 'right' as 'exertion', 'access', or, yes, 'privilege' of having the power as being able to do something, which as such entails when in what situation there exists the necessity ('imperative' or 'SHOULD') of ethical behaviour) It's not too complicated, when you express that people don't have a right to do something, it carries with it a certain implication and you need to understand where those rights actually come from and how they're applied. If you wished to say "Men should not go up to any random woman and speak their mind" then there'd have been no issue, because then we're talking about tact. To say that they have no right to carries more weight, and to me greatly misrepresents what a right truly is. Your implication is that the guy's right to put an anonymous note on the girl's car has been threatened in some way by federal law: it hasn't been. However, individual citizens are well within their rights to say if they disagree with your speech, and report if they feel your speech is a threat to their well being, which would no longer count as protected speech. If the man were arrested for leaving a note like he left, then yes, he'd likely be able to present a suit on First Amendment grounds, but as he wasn't, then his rights haven't been infringed upon at all. In other words, bringing up the Constitution is absolutely meaningless to this situation.
|
|
Sektor
Unicron
The OTHER Big Red Machine.
Posts: 2,808
|
Post by Sektor on Oct 23, 2013 20:32:03 GMT -5
I really wish threads with women as the focus didn't explode as often as they do on this board. A little too much zeal coming from both sides of the argument.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 20:32:18 GMT -5
And, again, keep the dumb tumblr s*** ON TUMBLR. Thank you. Do you know why it's considered "Tumblr shit"? Because Tumblr's one of the few sites where many persecuted groups actually have a voice, and elsewhere, people try and squash it like you're doing here. These notions didn't pop out of the void in the middle of some blogging about Supernatural or something, these are established concepts that you just happen to have ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Oct 23, 2013 20:33:23 GMT -5
She should have just found his car and left a note saying "no" on it.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Oct 23, 2013 20:33:40 GMT -5
And, again, keep the dumb tumblr s*** ON TUMBLR. Thank you. Do you know why it's considered "Tumblr shit"? Because Tumblr's one of the few sites where many persecuted groups actually have a voice, and elsewhere, people try and squash it like you're doing here. These notions didn't pop out of the void in the middle of some blogging about Supernatural or something, these are established concepts that you just happen to have ignored. It's too bad I didn't communicate my points in GIF form. Tumblr loves that kind of stuff.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 20:35:26 GMT -5
Do you know why it's considered "Tumblr shit"? Because Tumblr's one of the few sites where many persecuted groups actually have a voice, and elsewhere, people try and squash it like you're doing here. These notions didn't pop out of the void in the middle of some blogging about Supernatural or something, these are established concepts that you just happen to have ignored. It's too bad I didn't communicate my points in GIF form. Tumblr loves that kind of stuff. You know how it is, you're halfway through posting some funny gifs about a show, and suddenly you understand concepts like intersectionality!
|
|