All men should be aware of this

To all the people asking this, please just read my post about the sheer subtlety of body language, and our innate ability to read and modify it (you can use the function that lets you see all my posts - there have only been about 5, and it's the one that has two numbered scenarios near the top).

I simply don't believe that posters here aren't aware of the tiny, indescribable non-verbal cues we all use, every day.

If you encountered an aggressive dog and felt worried it would attack, you'd immediately attune every single part of your body and face to tell it not to - every inch of you would be "speaking" to it, in tiny ways that it's impossible to put into words, but that you and the dog would both understand. If you were engaging with a fearful dog, you'd do the same, and you'd do it very effectively indeed. If I then asked you to put into writing what you'd done, though, I imagine you'd struggle. But you'd know, all the same.

And I honestly believe many people writing here do know.

It's perfectly simple. Rightly or wrongly, the OP read verbal cues that left her anxious, so changed direction and sped up a bit to get back past the man to where there were people. There's no mystery here - no hypocrisy or illogicality to her movements!

And to all the posters who are saying that her behaviour would have deeply unsettled the man, even as his shouldn't have worried her for a second? You're clearly being utterly disingenuous - and not a little sexist. This interpretation quite obviously favours the man. For him to be unsettled by a woman who just abruptly changed her mind about her direction to head rapidly home (maybe she'd forgotten to lock the car? remembered the time?) you have to assume the worst possible non-verbal cues from that woman, and the man's sensitivity to reading these. Meanwhile, in order to disregard OP's own anxiety at the man in her turn, as he stopped to open his bag, you have to do the exact opposite: you have to disregard the existence of such verbal cues, and the woman's ability to read them. There's a clear bias here that's quite fascinating, and arguably makes the OP's point far more persuasively than her (rather unfairly critical of the man!) first post did.

I mean, maybe she read his non-verbal cues accurately. Most likely she didn't, and the poor guy was just getting something out of his bag. Whatever. The bigger picture here that she asked us to consider - and yet people are refusing to even acknowledge, with remarkable, quite hypocritical stubbornness - that it would make a huge difference to women if more men were aware of the impact the subtleties of their body language can have on women. That's it. There's no big mystery here.

Except, perhaps, in some posters' determination to reject a woman's request for empathy, while extending it in spades to an anonymous man who, at least as certainly as she shouldn't have been scared by him, was highly unlikely to have been scared by her.

I'm not suggesting we pretend the scenario the OP described is irrelevant. But nor does it need doing to death while ignoring the general question either. Surely to goodness there's only so many times "the man in this situation did no wrong" needs saying before we can discuss the general principle? I'd have thought most people were capable of seeing a wider concept without obsessing over the specifics. And indeed several posters have proved they are, including male ones. They've just been a bit drowned out by the ones who aren't.

In principle I agree with this - I think most of us have had the "cross the road at night" conversation with male friends, and mine have been largely receptive. This is not that discussion though. There are no takeaways. Most women disagree with the OP that her situation warranted a man changing his behaviour and there's certainly no consensus. It's a bit weird to pretend the specific scenario in the OP is irrelevant to the general discussion.

It's also really important to bear in mind that women aren't put at ease by the same things. I just read a post where a woman felt safer because a man called out to her that he wasn't following her. A man once did that to me and it scared the shit out of me, purely because I wasn't expecting it and it made me realise he'd noticed me. I hadn't actually been scared in the first place.

This is exactly why I don't trust other people's "spidey senses" and "gut instincts". They're so often a mask for prejudice. I don't mean women distrusting or getting anxious around men per se - "misandry" is not something I'm hugely bothered about - but as a mixed-race woman I'm all too used to "gut instincts" being a cover from outright racism (and other prejudice). When "spidey senses" seem to get triggered by Black men or working-class men (or in this case a long-haired man) - or for that matter hijabi women - but not by white men in suits, that's not what I consider a valid anxiety.

I think if you’re concerned about someone stopping and going in their backpack on a walk then it’s time to stop walking in remote places by yourself.

Im failing to see what he did wrong to be honest, I was waiting for the bit where he spoke to you or started walking closely behind you. He was likely getting a drink or snack out of his bag or something for his dog but I honestly don’t see what he’s done to act suspiciously in the scenario you describe.

So which is it??
up to that point I was keeping my distance walking behind him.

or from the OP:
I was a few feet behind him when he looked back over his shoulder back at me, then he stopped

Complete contradiction! Bottom line, you turned and followed a stranger! Then complained that he stopped when he noticed you were following him. What YOU did was really weird and unsettling.. I wouldn't want to be walking a 'few feet ahead' of someone who had purposely turned around to follow me, pretending to look for something in his bag was the safest way to avoid any interaction with you and let you overtake.

Your message about women's safety is completely invalidated IMO because what he did was 100% a response to an unpredictable situation, instigated by you, and he keep himself safe in a non confrontational way.. your safety as a woman shouldn't override his safety, when it is you that is shown to be the potential aggressor.

You KNOW that for certain now because nothing happened and he didn't do anything, so why you are still blaming him for doing something wrong here is ridiculous.

And no-one is arguing with that general principle but I think we've established now that in this particular scenario the man could not have reasonably been expected to do anything different. THE op 'felt anxious' but that doesn't mean the man in this particular situation should have acted differently than he did or been super aware.

Yes, of course motorists should be aware. There are endless campaigns and legislative changes made to get motorists to modify their behaviour to make other road users safer. Drink driving campaigns, speed restrictions, adverts showing what happens when you don't wear seat belts, banning phones while driving. It would be incredibly difficult for motorists to be unaware.
There are also campaigns to get people to use their cars less and to ban the vehicles that are most dangerous from high pedestrian areas.
A complete ban on motoring would never be supported as the cost would be seen as too great to be reasonable to eradicate road deaths. Asking men to be aware when encountering lone women in isolated places is a cost free way of reducing women's discomfort. So really not comparable.

Fair enough. But a woman has a greater chance of being killed in a road accident so should we all stop using our cars or going out onto the street?

Should all motorists be aware of this?

In 2022 419 women were killed on the road. (UKGOV)
In 2022 122 women killed by men. (FEMICIDE CENSUS)
In 2022 5 people (1 woman documented) killed by a shark

We know SM makes a difference. It's hugely influential in driving opinion. This site is huge. Why would it be the exception?
And no, I don't think men are reading MN and moderating their behaviour accordingly. It was actually you who said it was unsurprising men don't care about women when women on a MN thread have said they don't care about men. So I assumed you were the one who thought they were all sitting there changing behaviour based on what we said on here. I was clear I didn't.
The influence of this site is on women. Women talking to other women, sharing insight, opinion and information. If we have a discussion where we learn that some women would feel safer if men did certain things, then we can take this back to our male friends and relatives and bring it into how we raise our sons if we feel its valid.
I discussed the crossing the road thing with my DS when he was an older teen and he has done this since.

In OPs case it is OP who changed direction and followed the man. He did the right thing and waited for her to pass. He was just trying to survive as well. Or are men not supposed to do this, is it only women who are allowed to put their own survival needs first?

When i walk home from the station when it's quiet or dark i always stop and wait for any male behind me to go past so i can watch him, as well as having my keys in my hand. I just want to be sure of what they are doing. I imagine most lone women do this. This is not about me being anxious, it's because i watch the news, and it only takes one male to kill a woman or girl. No one should criticise a woman who is nervous around lone males, we're just trying to survive ffs

We also established why women are more likely to be killed by their family members than strangers. Greater opportunity and heightened vulnerability, plus personal motivators towards the woman. Not because being a husband makes a man more dangerous than being a stranger and ergo a stranger is safer than a husband. Most men are both strangers and partners after all.
I wasn't commenting on what the government is doing (not enough!) Just pointing out that it's not just a few overlly anxious women who think male behaviour is a problem. The most senior police officer, a man himself, has been very explicit about it.

Where was OPs awareness that this man didn't want to be followed? She is all about men being aware of her needs but completely blind to the needs of this man.

"If you think MN makes very little difference to the real world you might want to have a word with the advertisers".

Making money from Visitors to the site is not the same as making a difference.

Will OP never feel uncomfortable when following a random man out walking alone again then?

Do you honestly believe that lots of men are reading this thread and will moderate their real world behaviour going forward?

It's fair to ask men to be aware of women's discomfort. But the example that OP has used is ridiculous, because SHE was the person acting in a strange and somewhat unnerving way, not the man!

The reason I now park my car at the station instead of walking when I get the train to London and will be returning late, is because once a man did exactly what OP did. It was nearly midnight, he walked towards and past me, and then changed direction to walk behind me. It freaked me out, especially when I crossed the road to lose him, and he crossed too.

So yes, this thread is all over the place. I appreciate men being considerate, but OP is absolutely unreasonable in illustrating her point with an anecdote about a man doing nothing wrong, and her acting strangely.

I'm guessing that those who voted in get favour were simply responding to her asking been to be considerate, and didn't really read what happened.

Statistically women have a greater chance of being killed by their husbands or sons than by a male stranger. We established that earlier in the thread.

On one hand they talk about this epidemic of violence against women and children and on the other they decide to release prisoners early due to prison over crowding... Don't even get me started on the police. As a 59 year old London women who travels home late at night due to her job... I can tell you that I rarely see any police on the streets these day.

But he was all of those things?

Yes it is about awareness. The man was aware he was being followed so took action to prevent this, by letting her pass. The man has awareness, for his own safety. Men are allowed to do that, it's not always just about the women.

I don’t get it. A man was walking the opposite direction to you. He passed you and kept going. You turned around and followed him. What on earth was this man meant to do instead? Cease to exist?

I am very aware of my safety and if unsure will walk with keys in my hand as a weapon, but honestly this guy did nothing wrong.

Op, should be embarrassed at feeling a bit scared?
Ffs, trust me, its better to feel a bit scared and be aware of your surroundings than the potential alternative.
Op, you have nothing to be embarrassed about.
I worry how many women seem to think they're perfectly safe all the time.
Wise the fuck up. It's not about being a man hater, it's about awareness.

There’s two distinct possibilities here in my mind but neither of them involve the guy wanting to attack you. 1) He realised you had turned around and started following him and got freaked out so stopped to pretend to dig through his bag in order to let you past- people feel safer when someone isn’t following behind. 2) He stopped to get something out of his bag and just hadn’t registered you whatsoever because the world doesn’t revolve around you.

He didn’t do anything dodgy at all. Your instincts kicked off because you nodded and he didn’t do it back so this kickstarted a sense of anxiety for no real reason. You have no idea what’s going on in the guy’s life. I walked past a colleague in the street without registering he was there this week. He cornered me the next day and asked if he’d offended me! I hadn’t even noticed he was there. People have a lot going on.

If you think MN makes very little difference to the real world you might want to have a word with the advertisers. You might also want to familiarise yourself with some of the campaigns and direct action that have been born and gained the necessary traction via this site.

The high instances that Sir Mark Rowley, the most senior police officer in the UK referred to as 'a national epidemic' that was 'beyond the scope of policing' and posed a risk to 'millions of women'. The high instances you can see in numbers if you Google the stats.