|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 20:37:03 GMT -5
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. Unless a poster is being disrespectful or offensive with their language, please stop telling fellow posters what language they should use.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 20:38:10 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. The difference is that a subject like quantum physics requires quite a bit of expertise and training to be knowledgeable of, so the individual trained in it will obviously carry so much more weight. This is a question about basic human interaction, as long as we've participated in human interaction, we can have a perspective on it. Does that mean perspective won't be any different between a man and a woman? Not at all, and I think there is a valid point there, just as I think it'd be valid to point out that there's a lot about the situation that no side, pro or con, knows. But gender doesn't completely lock our ability to look at a situation and come to a conclusion on whether we believe she acted rationally, nor does it lock us into one stance or another, evidenced by the fact that the very first respondent was a woman who believed she overreacted (I'd assume, unless it's sarcasm). My problem with throwing it out there, at it's most basic level, is essentially the notion that you can't have a real discussion on a subject if you're going to wave your hand and say you have no room for an opinion or no right to express it, solely based on your gender, especially when that notion only ever applies to the people who dissent, not the men that support. That's not to say that I don't understand the sentiment, or that I never agree with it's use. There are situations that I don't think men's opinion have weight. But I don't think this particular situation reaches that level.
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Oct 23, 2013 20:39:01 GMT -5
Some of you need to calm down a bit here. Let's not get this locked please.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Oct 23, 2013 20:40:03 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 A few key words are in that that definition that don't apply to this situation. Steady and Persistent. The man left one note, and that was it. Even if the woman did feel that this was inappropriate, this is not stalking.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 23, 2013 20:40:57 GMT -5
I've never heard the term mansplaining before. Cripes how dopey sounding. And don't get me wrong, the phenomenon it refers to is legit, but calling it something so stupid sounding seems counterproductive.
As for the topic at hand, seems a bit of a kneejerk, but I can see her being wary as well.
Lol mansplaining
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 20:42:36 GMT -5
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. No, my implication is that if you're going to say someone does not have the right to do something, then you have to look into what actually determines the rights and what they mean, which goes well beyond this particular case. I would agree that this man's rights weren't violated, but I greatly disagree with the notion that one private citizen can say another private citizen doesn't have the right to say something to a a third private citizen except with strict exceptions. Anything can seem pointless if you choose to ignore the context.
|
|
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 20:44:20 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 A few key words are in that that definition that don't apply to this situation. Steady and Persistent. The man left one note, and that was it. Even if the woman did feel that this was inappropriate, this is not stalking. Honestly I feel there is more to the story than is being reported though
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 20:45:19 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. Except this is not a discussion on someone's "persecution" It's a story of a guy from the building who left a note to try to meet a girl he happened to see. He wasn't a creep or a stalker who followed her or waited months for this, he was a neighbor who just saw her recently. Then, that woman took the note the wrong way and called the cops for what is seen to be absolutely no reason. That's it. No mansplaining. No male privilege. No rape culture. No persecution. No hear me Roar. Nothing. It has 0 point in this story. None. The gender is irrelevant, as it's all the action that has the focus here.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Oct 23, 2013 20:46:50 GMT -5
A few key words are in that that definition that don't apply to this situation. Steady and Persistent. The man left one note, and that was it. Even if the woman did feel that this was inappropriate, this is not stalking. Honestly I feel there is more to the story than is being reported though There's no point in trying to make an argument based on an assumption with no way of backing it up.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 20:49:09 GMT -5
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. No, my implication is that if you're going to say someone does not have the right to do something, then you have to look into what actually determines the rights and what they mean, which goes well beyond this particular case. I would agree that this man's rights weren't violated, but I greatly disagree with the notion that one private citizen can say another private citizen doesn't have the right to say something to a a third private citizen except with strict exceptions. Anything can seem pointless if you choose to ignore the context. I might have missed something in the thread, but have we actually had people saying the guy "doesn't have the right" to this speech (which implies that he could've been arrested for this one-off situation), or simple critiques about the form of speech being used? And was it being used literally, in a legalistic sense? The vast bulk of the posts critical of the guy's methods seem to be pointing out the unintentional disrespect of contacting a person in the way he did, not that it's an action unprotected from potential federal action.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 20:49:53 GMT -5
A few key words are in that that definition that don't apply to this situation. Steady and Persistent. The man left one note, and that was it. Even if the woman did feel that this was inappropriate, this is not stalking. Honestly I feel there is more to the story than is being reported though The problem with stories like this is that we're only given, most likely, what's in the police report and now nothing of either party, the apartment, or even the full context of the note. So we can only go off what is reported, and that's one note on the window prompting a call, where she told the police she was worried he was going to be violent. Her actions are unusual or they wouldn't have been reported, and thus we've spawned this debate. There are many things that'd obviously make her actions justified, but people really shouldn't just add facts to a story when they aren't aware of whether it's true.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Oct 23, 2013 20:50:47 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. Well that's a faulty example. The case you presented is more of a factual base one not opinion based like this one. If a historian tells me what year Columbus found America I can't argue with that since it's a fact, but we can argue whether he was a good man or not since that's an opinionated argument just like this one is. We are stating our opinions not what the facts presented. I hope you see what your basically saying. Your premise is if I have never done/experience it I can't comment on it. I will never be in political power so I can't criticize the President, I've never experience being a commentator so I can't comment on Jerry Lawler's attitude. That's a really shitty line of reasoning. I'll never be a pregnant lady so I can't give an opinion on a women who decided to drink alcohol when she's pregnant. What do I know right?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 20:51:36 GMT -5
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. Again, this isn't an equivalent situation: if your mother was calling in the cops to actually show up on the scene, that's not the same as making a report. The guy has no strikes on his record, and no cops were called to the actual scene to investigate anything. You may see an overreaction, but again, it's worthwhile to consider what the perspective of the person involved might be. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily 100% agree with it, but it's tough to apply our own personal anecdotes to other people's personal, individual experiences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 20:53:44 GMT -5
Look - she was just playing it safe guys. She didn't press charges or get a restraining order or anything crazy like that. She got a note from a stranger in her building, told the police she wants it on file that this person tried to contact her and then left it at that. If she wanted him arrested or something like that, then yeah - that's an over reaction. Just wanting the police to keep a record of this occurrance is not only appropriate for the situation, but smart should something happen and the law needs to get involved. If I were a woman, I'd do the same thing. Heck, the same thing happened to my girlfriend a few months ago. Some random dude in our building left a note on her car in the parking garage with his number (no name though) and I told her she should let the police know this happened just in case. It doesn't ruin anyone's life/reputaion/etc - its just keeping a record in case of whatever. It may not ruin his life, but she still got a file on the guy and got it in there that she thinks he might be violent. That is the sort of thing that could come back against him, even for innocuous reasons. Is it likely? About as likely a him turning out to be a murderous psychopath stalker. And if you want to keep a record, you can keep a record without the police, and if at any point he keeps trying to contact her after she doesn't respond, then you still have the option to call the police. It doesn't have to be first contact, you can show a little more faith in people than to think that everyone is a murderous psychopath waiting for an excuse to break in and stab you. The only real point here is that there's playing it safe and there's being overly paranoid. You can say he went about it the wrong way, but that's nothing to go to the police over. When you live around people, you should do so with the knowledge that people you don't know might try to talk to you at some point. There is a lot of gray area between innocent dude and murderous psychopath. I can't count the number of times I've read about instances in which women DIDN'T report things to the police when things escalated and it came back to bite them in the ass when they've been victimized. The amount of times a guy's life has been adversely affected by someone keeping a record of leaving a note? Likely zero. Again. If she pressed charges or took any kind of action, I'd agree she were over reacting. This is just a case of her not wanting the cops any reason to brush her off if things do escalate - even if its not to the stalker/murderer level.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,436
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 23, 2013 20:54:24 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. Except this is not a discussion on someone's "persecution" It's a story of a guy from the building who left a note to try to meet a girl he happened to see. He wasn't a creep or a stalker who followed her or waited months for this, he was a neighbor who just saw her recently. Then, that woman took the note the wrong way and called the cops for what is seen to be absolutely no reason. That's it. No mansplaining. No male privilege. No rape culture. No persecution. No hear me Roar. Nothing. It has 0 point in this story. None. The gender is irrelevant, as it's all the action that has the focus here. If you don't see the wider context of things, where women often face rape and assault from these oh so lovely and not at all creepy guys who make it clear that they know where you live but you have no idea what they look like so they could surprise you at any time because you have been judged as sexually desirable to them and that's the most important thing about you, that's your business. It's a completely messed up power dynamic. 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. Well that's a faulty example. The case you presented is more of a factual base one not opinion based like this one. If a historian tells me what year Columbus found America I can't argue with that since it's a fact, but we can argue whether he was a good man or not since that's an opinionated argument just like this one is. We are stating our opinions not what the facts presented. I hope you see what your basically saying. Your premise is if I have never done/experience it I can't comment on it. I will never be in political power so I can't criticize the President, I've never experience being a commentator so I can't comment on Jerry Lawler's attitude. That's a really shitty line of reasoning. I'll never be a pregnant lady so I can't give an opinion on a women who decided to drink alcohol when she's pregnant. What do I know right? What it's saying is that people often spout off about things they have no idea about because they have no idea of how society actually works from any other point of view and they're not willing to put in the slightest bit of research. There are so many sources where you can actually find out why people do find certain modes of behaviour to be big red warning lights, why things you might never have thought of are actually huge points of contention. It's not that you can never have an opinion, but that people take their opinion as more important even when they know nothing! That was the point of the analogy, that because I know nothing about quantum physics, no matter how important I think my voice on it is, it's essentially worthless to someone who knows what they're talking about. It's not quite the same because there's all kinds of issues when it comes to areas of oppression that just aren't there in quantum physics, but I hope you get the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Oct 23, 2013 21:01:20 GMT -5
Except this is not a discussion on someone's "persecution" It's a story of a guy from the building who left a note to try to meet a girl he happened to see. He wasn't a creep or a stalker who followed her or waited months for this, he was a neighbor who just saw her recently. Then, that woman took the note the wrong way and called the cops for what is seen to be absolutely no reason. That's it. No mansplaining. No male privilege. No rape culture. No persecution. No hear me Roar. Nothing. It has 0 point in this story. None. The gender is irrelevant, as it's all the action that has the focus here. If you don't see the wider context of things, where women often face rape and assault from these oh so lovely and not at all creepy guys who make it clear that they know where you live but you have no idea what they look like so they could surprise you at any time because you have been judged as sexually desirable to them and that's the most important thing about you, that's your business. It's a completely messed up power dynamic. There is a point when the wider context has no merit, and this is one of this times. No, the rape and sexual assault statistics have no basis for what is happening here. At all. And again, why is it considered creepy for this guy to leave a note? It's not out of the ordinary, as people like me did come into the thread thinking it was an accident, where you tend to leave a note on someone's car. Also, the whole passing notes thing from school. And another thing is that she never met him. She didn't even bother telling him she made the report, and even told police to not tell him she did this. She only has the note, a note that said he thought she looked cute and gave some contact information about him. How is that creepy or threatening to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 23, 2013 21:01:49 GMT -5
No, my implication is that if you're going to say someone does not have the right to do something, then you have to look into what actually determines the rights and what they mean, which goes well beyond this particular case. I would agree that this man's rights weren't violated, but I greatly disagree with the notion that one private citizen can say another private citizen doesn't have the right to say something to a a third private citizen except with strict exceptions. Anything can seem pointless if you choose to ignore the context. I might have missed something in the thread, but have we actually had people saying the guy "doesn't have the right" to this speech (which implies that he could've been arrested for this one-off situation), or simple critiques about the form of speech being used? And was it being used literally, in a legalistic sense? The vast bulk of the posts critical of the guy's methods seem to be pointing out the unintentional disrespect of contacting a person in the way he did, not that it's an action unprotected from potential federal action. The person I was quoting said that guys don't have a right to tell women how they real feel, which is why I said it, otherwise there'd have been no reason to say it. Whether they intended it from a legalistic standpoint or not is less important to me than adhering the strict notion that people do or don't have any right to say anything and claiming anything that disagrees is just privilege talking. Ultimately, I can't read someone's mind if they were being literal or not, I can only make a judgement on what they mean based on their tone, and their tone made it seem like they were pretty serious. I wasn't responding to the bulk of the people with that post, I've no issue at all with people who disagree with me.
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Oct 23, 2013 21:03:56 GMT -5
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. Again, this isn't an equivalent situation: if your mother was calling in the cops to actually show up on the scene, that's not the same as making a report. The guy has no strikes on his record, and no cops were called to the actual scene to investigate anything. You may see an overreaction, but again, it's worthwhile to consider what the perspective of the person involved might be. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily 100% agree with it, but it's tough to apply our own personal anecdotes to other people's personal, individual experiences. I see and am sorry. Clearly I'm four steps farther than what actually happened, because I thought police report meant strikes. I appreciate you explaining it further
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 21:04:42 GMT -5
If you don't see the wider context of things, where women often face rape and assault from these oh so lovely and not at all creepy guys who make it clear that they know where you live but you have no idea what they look like so they could surprise you at any time because you have been judged as sexually desirable to them and that's the most important thing about you, that's your business. It's a completely messed up power dynamic. There is a point when the wider context has no merit, and this is one of this times. No, the rape and sexual assault statistics have no basis for what is happening here. At all? Because...reasons?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 23, 2013 21:05:22 GMT -5
Again, this isn't an equivalent situation: if your mother was calling in the cops to actually show up on the scene, that's not the same as making a report. The guy has no strikes on his record, and no cops were called to the actual scene to investigate anything. You may see an overreaction, but again, it's worthwhile to consider what the perspective of the person involved might be. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily 100% agree with it, but it's tough to apply our own personal anecdotes to other people's personal, individual experiences. I see and am sorry. Clearly I'm four steps farther than what actually happened, because I thought police report meant strikes. I appreciate you explaining it further No worries man, glad to help out.
|
|