h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"You're saying that women, by verbally rejecting verbal sexual advances, can have no effect on or responsibility for the feelings or actions of the men they reject, and any actions are thus entirely the responsibility of the men in question."

Hmmm... speaking as someone who once behaved *atrociously* (not violently, I hasten to add, just nasty passive-aggressive behaviour) in reaction to a rejection of sexual interest I am firmly of the beleif that how us men respond to such a rejecion is ENTIRELY our responsibility. A woman who simply tells a man 'no' should not have to shoulder any blame for that man acting like an idiot in response.

In terms of the percentage of men that behave in a certain leery way in the street to women, I'd say in the UK its a small minority. But try visiting places like Cypress or Turkey as a young European woman with no male to chaperone you, and the percentages are more or less reversed. Even dying your hair black only puts off a few.

On a trip to Cypress with a girlfriend I got so sick in the end with the persistent harassment..that on one occasion on a fairly deserted beach..or so we thought..(note there are no deserted beaches in Turkey and Cypress..I guarantee within 10 minutes one of their males will turn up), I actually started throwing pebbles at a couple of them..one came over and a bit of a tussle in the surf happened..though he probably loved it. I told him I would go to the police. He laughed and said, 'I am the police'.

So it's as much cultural as biological IMO.

"it's as much cultural as biological "

Biology is why it happens at all. Culture is whether it happens a lot. I find it hard to conceive of a culture where it didn't happen at all; at least, not one where there are heterosexual males.

"how us men respond to such a rejecion is ENTIRELY our responsibility"

I didn't say it wasn't.

But if you take that line, and I have no objection to someone taking that line, then the corollary must be that WOMEN'S response to men's comments in the street is ENTIRELY their - the women's - responsibility.

Otherwise, as I said before - in the field of verbal interactions between male and female, are women responsible for ANYTHING?

Let's try to clarify a few things, because Twaggers' post 219 seems mightily confused.

"Are women responsible for ANYTHING?"

The two examples have nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

If someone yells abuse at someone else in the street, the person who shouted the abuse is responsible for the feelings that that provokes - be it discomfort, embarrassment, anger, humiliation, fear, whatever. They're responsible because they've done it. And they've done it for no valid reason - for a little thrill at the expense of someone else. I do not have the right to get my thrills at the expense (and sometimes considerable expense) of others. What the abuser has done in this scenario is wrong. Unless anyone is still seriously arguing that we have the right to abuse people in the street....

However, if someone tries to (for want of a better expression) chat someone up and are politely rebuffed, the feelings of rejection are not the responsibility of the rejecter, other than in the very narrow and limited sense that the rejecter caused them. However, in this case, most ordinary people think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to politely rebuff unwelcome advances. In this case, the rejector is not committing a morally wrong act, but a morally neutral one - the rejector has the right to say no. Unless anyone is seriously arguing that it's my moral duty to sleep with anyone who takes a fancy to me. Arguably, it's even in the rejectee's interests for the rejector to do the rebuffing earlier rather than later, and firmly rather than ambiguously. Cruel to be kind.

So.... we have one case where one person causes needless upset/fear for no good reason except for selfish pleasure, and another case where one person causes a degree of upset through rejection for the perfectly good reason that she's not interested. There's absolutely no parallel between the cases, and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

A quick note on lower and higher order desires might help....

We can't choose what we desire or feel or believe in any straightforward way. That is, it's not possible to change any of these through a simple effort of will. The classic example lower order desire is wanting a cigarette. Higher order desires are desires about desires. So... I want not to want a cigarette. It's clearly possible for higher order desires to have an effect, but it's not immediate and it's not straightforward. It's true for feelings too.... I can love someone and not want to. Or want to love someone more, but not be able to.

So... that attractive woman at the party turned me down. I want it to be water off a duck's back, but the fact is that she's lovely, I don't like rejection and it hurts. I want not to be affected by that gang of yobs shouting abuse. I want not to be afraid of them. But the fact is that it does hurt, and that I am afraid. In both cases I can do more or I can do less to bring about my second order desires. I can think about another woman I know, or tell myself that she wasn't really right for me. I can tell myself that these are just harmless losers, and I should give them no satisfaction by showing them that they've got to me. In both cases, these strategies may well work in time.

Now actions are another category. I've only got limited control over my short term feelings/beliefs/desires, but I've got much more control over my actions. I can't help feeling rejected and hurt, but I have more control about how I choose to respond. Now granted, there are grey areas here - people lose their temper or snap in various ways where they're not fully in control - but it's clear that there is much more control about actions

And when Mr D talks about "how us men respond to such a rejection", I don't think he's talking about that initial sting. I think he's referring to about how someone responds in terms of longer term feelings and - crucially - actions.

When we're talking about fear responses - we're talking about something different - we're talking about short term, immediate responses.

So... apples and oranges in terms of comparison, and nothing to do with gender.

kea, your explanation of that cartoon - what I meant was that I don't understand the unprovoked attitude expressed there.
- - - -

Harking back to the way women dress: exposure of great areas of flesh is, to me mildly provocative but mainly simply immodest.

But, when girls and women go to the extent of painting those areas to display (permanent) arousal in order to appear attractive, then that becomes actively provocative and is, to me, highly distasteful - and it's no surprise to find that some men react less than politely. Be careful what you wish for.

And, as to women having that power - yes, you do, and it actually is power even though some of you like to pretend otherwise.
Dammit, that's the way we're made.
We have different bodies for different purposes and that = different responses.

"I didn't say it wasn't."

You apparently objected to someone saying that women shouldn't be responsible for how men react to rejection, and then said "Are women responsible for ANYTHING?"

How was I supposed to interpret that?

Rod, I don't know what you don't understand about that cartoon Toybox linked to..it was bloody hilarious...and right on the money..any explanation would murder it.

>, then that becomes actively provocative and is, to me, highly distasteful - and it's no surprise to find that some men react less than politely.<

In a real life, several times a day people behave in what I construe to be a provocative way..whether that be a little p**ck tailgating me, or some half wit texting, whilst I'm trying to talk to them. Those are real things that directly affect me.

By all means find something distasteful..(as I've said I find veils annoying), but that's a million miles from a man feeling so out of control of himself that he couldn't not comment...or respond. If a woman chooses to do that, it's her choice..actually reacting verbally to such a perceived 'power' on the part of the observer is purely the observer's choice...and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I wouldn't have expected you to make excuses for that kind of lack of self control.

First off, I NEVER said the majority of men are vocally abusive, but the experience of verbal (and sometimes tactile) abuse is VERY common for women.

Twigster, I've never rejected advances rudely, from a man (or a woman, for that matter). Truth be told, I'm not even attractive, so I've rarely been approached. Rudely yelled at and manhandled, yeah. I in no way have ever belittled anyone. Politeness counts, in any case -- I may be an atheist, but the Golden Rule makes sense.

On the other hand, I've been physically touched against my will, and it is a fearful thing. Just an example: A man in a bar my husband and I were in shoved his hand down the front of my jeans as I made my way through a crowd on the way to the loo. He didn't ask me out, he didn't say a word to me and I was not dressed provocatively. I'm not buying your argument that his action was justifued because some women, somewhere, at some time, rejected him. It was a sociopathic act. And before you ask where my husband was during this, he wasn't in the habit of going to the Ladies...

Do me a favor, ask your mother or your sister or your girlfriend or your daughter if she has ever been harassed in public, then sit back and listen to her, without interrupting.

Effers, I think I do understand that cartoon.

Are we also possibly missing something else? (And this is a genuine question, not a leading one):

Let&#39;s accept that male abuse and harassment of women is a minority phenomenon. So how do the minority get away with it so often? Is there something about male society in the round that gives the minority the idea that their behaviour is tolerated - or, at least, not actively discouraged?

Remember - from the woman&#39;s point of view, we&#39;re talking about a *majority* phenomenon to the extent that, even in our liberal, non-veil wearing society, many women feel their freedom of movement to be curtailed.

> many women feel their freedom of movement to be curtailed.<

I don't think that it helps that it is often suggested, and feminists can do this, that there is a continuum between basically, school boy style banter and stupid behaviour, of which I'd say my experience in Turkey and Cyprus ( I've spelt it right now), is an example, and really nasty aggressive possibly verging on rape behaviour. In my life, and on many travels, including being subjected to many 'flashers', I have *never* felt genuinely frightened that a man would attack me in a nasty way. (I have been subjected to a very nasty emotional/mind game attack by a man..but women regularly do this as well).

I think the main problem is when you are in a situation where you are trapped with the 'schoolboy' stuff like in a job or if they come into your home to do work. Yes the overt stuff is more common amongst working class, manual trades men..and some can be quite unpleasant when they think you're vulnerable, like in your home. It seems to be a sub culture thing. But then most working class manual trades type males are lovely in my experience..indeed as are men in general.

My own feeling is that both men and women can be really nasty and violent..both emotionally and physically.

It's complicated though...

"the person who shouted the abuse is responsible for the feelings that that provokes"

Except - and this is, I think, a key to understanding why it happens - it's NOT "abuse" in the mind of the guy doing the shouting. It's a chatup. It's a bit of fun. It's a compliment. They really, really think that, on at least one level. On another level, as I've suggested, they know that as a chatup it's bound to fail - because if it wasn't guaranteed to fail, they wouldn't have the courage to say it and risk rejection they hadn't actively sought. But despite that - it's NOT "abuse".

That it is received that way, and interpreted that way by others - well, that's nuffin to do with me, innit?

"they've done it for no valid reason"

Asserting dominance over a member of the outgroup, and bonding with and asserting dominance within the ingroup are absolutely valid reasons for such action. They WORK. That's why they persist. Whether they are "wrong" is a societal construct which is relatively recent compared to the biological and social structures which give rise to it.

>>..the biological and social structures which give rise to it. <<

They are all little boys.
They are rebelling against the maternal apron strings
(the biological bit - all young males will eventually
repulse, dismiss or abandon their mothers) as they
begin bonding with their fellows (the cultural bit - it's
from them and other 'older' males they learn about sex
and how to keep a woman in her place).

Either way they're just a bunch of mothereffers.
So ignore 'em unless you wanna become a mother substitute.


~jwf~

Except .... it's NOT "abuse" in the mind of the guy doing the shouting. It's a chatup. It's a bit of fun. It's a compliment. They really, really think that, on at least one level. On another level, as I've suggested, they know that as a chatup it's bound to fail - because if it wasn't guaranteed to fail, they wouldn't have the courage to say it and risk rejection they hadn't actively sought. But despite that - it's NOT "abuse" .... That it is received that way, and interpreted that way by others - well, that's nuffin to do with me, innit?"

There's no doubt that people in general (and some people in particular) have a tremendous capacity for self-justification and self-deception. Few people, I think, consider themselves a bully. They're just 'joking', and if they upset someone, it's their fault for not being able to 'take a joke'. The workplace bully doesn't consider herself a bully - she's merely a 'strong leader' or someone who 'demands' the best from her staff.

There are grey areas - there are some people who can be over-sensitive, but generally people who think like this are deluded about what they're doing and why. And that level of lack of self awareness and lack of consideration of the feelings of others is really rather pathetic.

"Asserting dominance over a member of the outgroup, and bonding with and asserting dominance within the ingroup are absolutely valid reasons for such action. They WORK. That's why they persist. Whether they are "wrong" is a societal construct which is relatively recent compared to the biological and social structures which give rise to it."

Right and wrong is not simply a societal construct. It's kind of trendy in a lazy po-mo way to affect to believe this, but when pushed, virtually no-one really does. My suggestion to anyone who has problems with the absolutist undertones of ideas of "right" and "wrong" is to instead think about "better" and "worse". We all think that some states of affairs/actions/whatever are better or worse than others, surely?

I'm massively unconvinced by biological or evolutionary reductionist arguments. While it's interesting to consider evolutionary antecedents and reasons for current behaviours and instincts, what it can end up us is just a list of rather pathetic excuses for bad behaviour. What's amazing about humans is the ability to transcend primitive instincts and reason and decide things for ourselves.

If a 'feminist journalist' wrote a piece saying that men were just primitive creatures of instinct who were couldn't help themselves and were just predisposed to bad behaviour (from shouting abuse to sexual harassment to sexual assault), and could only be prevented from starting wars or other acts of violence through regular sex, there would be outrage.

I'm also puzzled as to why there should be a biological or evolutionary advantage in making women an 'out group'. Or behaving like an arse in general, really - given that our success as a species is the result of cooperation and negotiation, the 'alpha male' is not a knuckle-dragging thug, but a skilled social operator.

Just in case anyone didn't catch the article on Woman's Hour earlier

'In one of the programmes she argues that God had a wife, the goddess Asherah, in another that Eve was “unfairly maligned as the troublesome wife who brought about the Fall” by male biblical writers.' - Dr Francesca Stravrakopoulou – Bible’s Buried Treasure http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zdl1p

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zp3j3

"I'm also puzzled as to why there should be a biological or evolutionary advantage in making women an 'out group'."

Doesn't take much imagination. It's in the male's interests to bond with the other males in the group in such a way as to discourage them from attacking him. There is NO such incentive to bond with females in that way. In fact, there's an active disincentive, because if you do bond with females that way, the other males see you as a female, and ostracise you. For most of our history as a species, males had competition only from other males, and the competition was for shelter, food and females. It's therefore perfectly sensible that they'd form bonds with other males to make competition less bloody and final. The alternative is constant physical confrontation with other males - not good.

"Or behaving like an arse in general, really - given that our success as a species is the result of cooperation and negotiation, the 'alpha male' is not a knuckle-dragging thug, but a skilled social operator."

I think you have a very rose-tinted and 20th-century-centric view of our history as a species, and perhaps misunderstood or just romanticised the idea of the alpha-male.

For most of our history as a species, there have been males who make their living as skilled social operators. But those are the BETA males. They take the alpha males' sloppy seconds and rejects. Why? Because if they try to access the prime stock, they get killed. That's what alpha males are - the ones who dominate, completely, the entire group, male and female.

It is only relatively recently that alpha males have come to be those who dominate by financial or proxy means, rather than the force of their own strong arms. It's only barely over half a millenium since the leaders of this country were decided by man-on-man hand-to-hand combat. Pretending we were. historically, in any way a political species is just wishful delusion. It would be nice to pretend we were, but the truth is we're not so far removed from the era of the knuckle-dragging thug. What's even more depressing is that being a knuckle-dragging thug is still provably a recipe for success with women. "Nice guys finish last" sound familiar? And how else do you explain people like Mike Tyson, Charlie Sheen, and many, many other people whose fame is in part based directly on their reputation as wife-beaters, STILL being knackers-deep in willing totty?

History lesson for you Twag: the "knuckle-dragging thugs" who had no political ability never stayed there very long.

It&#39;s a big assumption for starters that animal societies are naturally shaped by the behaviour of alpha males. We don&#39;t have to look too far to find examples of matriarchal species in which domestic arrangements (some of them aren&#39;t necessarily &#39;hierarchies&#39 are not shaped by male (or female) violence.

Or as the great, feminist writer Margaret Atwood (when oh when will she get her Nobel?) put it:

&#39;Well if you *insist* on looking to other species as examples of how humans are supposed to behave, why not bonobos? Why not the preying mantis?&#39;

EtPM

Incidentally...

Is this maybe part of the reason for the prevalence of male harassment and abuse? That there&#39;s a tacit assumption that it&#39;s &#39;only natural&#39; and we&#39;re doing a damn good job if we can manage to keep our dicks in our pants?