All men should be aware of this

[mildlysweaty]

I went for a walk in the sunshine around the back of my child’s school before pickup today. Usually the odd dog walker passes by but it’s pretty remote/foresty. I do this walk often but never go fully into the woods bit alone - because I’m female.

I was walking towards the woods and a person with long hair was walking my way - wrongly assumed it was a woman but when I passed them I realised it was a man in his 30s. I’ve passed plenty of men before walking their dogs, generally they give a nod and carry on. I started to feel a bit uneasy so rather than continue in that direction, I stopped a little further then turned around and started walking back (same way bloke was going).

I was a few feet behind him when he looked back over his shoulder back at me, then he stopped (with his back to me) and started opening his backpack. I felt bad vibes, there was no one else around. I managed to speed walk past him and pretended to phone my husband and had my car key ready to use if needed but all was okay in the end, I then passed some women walking.

In all honesty it could’ve been totally benign but any decent man should know that this sort of behaviour is intimidating for a woman, who’s alone, especially with nobody else around.

To get to my point: ALL men should understand how women need to be programmed to be wary of them, and how they can help is by ensuring they aren’t doing anything that could feel intimidating. They don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, but any decent man should be aware and conscious of how their behaviour may impact. I have reminded my husband of this today. It took a while to shake the feeling from this afternoon.

if voting I guess YABU = men don’t need to know this
YANBU = yes they do need to know this, it’s a way they can help

What is your point, then, OP? Because I can't fathom what this man had done wrong that other men need to be made aware of?

Or are you saying all men need to be aware of your anxiety and take steps to mitigate it? Because that really does sound unreasonable and controlling, to expect strangers to intuit your emotional state and try to make you feel better.

OP, can you tell us what you think this man could or should have done differently?

OP no one is a mind-reader. None of us knew what you expected this man to do. He let you pass, there was nothing else he could do. If you are this anxious about a non event maybe don't walk there again. He did absolutely nothing wrong and had every right to be there.

Also OP. You want men to modify their behaviour. This guy actually did, he let you pass. He went in his bag and let you pass. In that situation he couldn't have done anything else. You followed him and you expect him to modify his behaviour. Take a look at your own actions.

OP we are all waiting for you to tell us what you think this man should have done. Because we honestly carnt see that he could have done anything else besides what he did do

Speak for yourself. You might be waiting. We're certainly not 'all' waiting given OP actually told us three days ago.

No she didn't

Because she changed the story slightly to make him seem potentially more sinister

And none of that negates the fact SHE followed HIM

(Although you also hold the dangerous view that men can't feel scared being followed so...)

No she didn't. If the OP carnt even tell us what the man could have different then how is the man supposed to know? He waited for her to pass, he busied himself. If the man had stood and looked at her while she passed or didn't give way she would complain about that to.He choose the least intimidating way to go about this

She stated quite clearly in her post on the 21st what she would have wanted him to do differently. You don't have to agree with her, but she said it.
Would you like to explain in what way my belief that it's highly unlikely this man would have been frightened by this situation
a) is in any way the same as saying a man can't feel scared at being followed (for the record, i think being followed by another man would likely be very frightening indeed for a man)?
b) Makes me 'dangerous'? Because on a thread belittling a woman for being frightened, calling a woman who holds a different view to you, who presents no risk to anyone seems both hyperbolic and rather hypocritical of you.

Click see all of OPs posts. Scroll down to her post of 21st at 11.51. She tells us there what she would have wanted him to do differently.
You can argue she's unreasonable to say that if you have a different opinion, but that she said it is a matter of fact.

And if a man is already a decent sort who wouldn't remotely dream of harming a woman... what can he do to become 'more decent'?

It's a bit like saying that people who always pay for their purchases in shops could help to reduce the scourge of shoplifting, if they were decent people, by... continuing to pay for their goods as they always have.

You mean the post where she changed her story so instead of him glancing back and then just stopping to get something to him constantly looking at her and then deliberately blocking her path (which he could only do as she was following him)?

He didn't do anything wrong. OP was so scared of this man that instead of leaving him alone she approached him? Doesn't make sense.

I said you VIEW was dangerous, it seems reading comprehension is lacking. The view men can't be scared of women (which is what you've said many times) especially women acting erratically or unusually is dangerous. It perpetuates the stereotype that men can't be harmed by women and prevents men reporting assaults due to the fear of not being believed or being mocked.

There have been links shared about women attacking and hurting others in parks, whilst in a face to face attack the man might have the physical advantage, she was coming up behind him after looking at him oddly. She could have had a weapon to attack him, she could have been trying to rob him, she could have been trying to distract him so her 6 foot 7, brick shithouse boyfriend could jump him. Everyone should be aware of anyone acting erratically regardless of gender.

She wanted him to think about her feelings of safety, but completely disregard his own when somebody had just suddenly changed direction and was now following very closely behind him.

OP didn't know if he wanted to do her amy harm; just like he didn't know if she wanted to do him any harm.

Yes, she would have been unable to rape him and extremely unlikely to sexually assault him; but those aren't the only potential crimes.

For all we know, he was worried that she'd suddenly changed direction and was shadowing him closely in an attempt to take him unawares and steal his phone. He didn't know that she didn't have a knife or had picked up a hefty fallen branch to whack him with or was skilled in martial arts and taking people by surprise.

What if, concerned about this potential crime and/or assault, he got nervous and stopped to reassure himself that she hadn't already stealthily delved into his bag and stolen his phone or car keys? An unknown person suddenly following very closely behind would concern most people and put them on high alert - even a school-aged child doing something like that would make you wonder what they were up to.

But instead, we have people who believe that all men are essentially dangerous criminals just waiting for their chance to strIke; whilst the faintest suggestion that a woman could ever possibly commit any kind of aggressive crime are making up far-fetched fantasies and being utterly ridiculous...

We've had days of going over this ground and you're not saying anything new, or that I haven't already responded to in previous posts, so there's no point repeating myself. Also Catiette gives a far better and fuller answer to these points in her posts, and there's nothing useful I can add she's not said already.
All I'm doing here is correcting the posters claiming the OP hadn't told us what she would have wanted the man to do, and telling them where to find what she's said.

So…men shouldn’t walk in the woods if the have long hair and if they do they shouldn’t stop to get anything out of their backpack?

Point taken.

I just think a lot of us on the thread are baffled by OP's response to being naturally wary by apparently blaming men for existing.

But you're right, it has gone around and around - with people covering rhe same ground from both major perspectives.

I guess the only reasonable conclusion to OP's AIBU is "Eh, what?!"

Most of us disregard the post where she changed her story.

Ok - have found it. She's being unreasonable.

"as the lone woman in the situation, I would have felt much safer had he continued going as he was, not kept looking back at me, and not stopped, blocking the back route to the school, therefore making me feel trapped and threatened having to walk past him acting shifty."

So, she wanted him

1. to keep walking - she created a situation which he reacted to.
2. not to look over his shoulder when he heard someone (the OP) walking close behind him - that's a natural response. If the OP didn't want this to happen she should not have walked so close to him.
3. not to stop - again, stopping to let someone pass is a natural, and I would say courteous response when out walking and someone walking faster than you is close behind you.
4. not to block one of two presumably narrow paths - he's not a mind reader. Going by the OP's diagram, and assuming fairly narrow paths, having realised she was behind him and walking faster than him, he took the first opportunity of space to step to the side and let her pass him easily. He didn't know which way she was going, which was a path which led off the path they were both on. She could have simply said she was going on to the side path, and he would have moved aside to let her past.
5. she says he was being "shifty" - how? By stopping and looking in his rucksack? That's normal behaviour, and it was possibly also a ruse to avoid awkwardness when he stepped to the side to let her pass.

I've already pointed out that I go walking every day as a "lone woman". Usually in more remote rural locations than where the OP encountered this man, and sometimes on rural backroads in the dark - wearing a head torch, and if it's a clear night with a full moon, without a torch at all. The OP is being needlessly fearful and suspicious which I would say is detrimental to her well-being as she is seeing danger where there is almost certainly none. She was walking in daytime, near a school - not a remote area - there were others about - she passed some other women soon after passing the man, and that man was doing absolutely nothing untoward or remotely threatening. He was polite and stopped to let her pass. Yes, he stopped on the wrong bit of path, but there was a 50:50 chance this would happen, and she could have spoken to him, or just waved her hand as an indicator.

Agree with above poster. OP if he really was blocking your way, which I doubt, you could have said excuse me instead of trying to rush past. If I was him I would have thought you where rude and I would have probably said you could have just asked.

I have not once said 'men can't be scared of women'. So it's either your own reading comprehension that's at fault or you are willfully misrepresenting what I've said because it's easier for you to argue with than my actual views.
I said it would be unlikely the man was frightened by the OP.
I said that studies show most men are not frightened by women.
I said that I personally am not frightened by women.
I said that statistically there is far less need for people of either sex to fear women than men.
I said that women pose less risk, both in terms of what we know of behaviour patterns of the sexes, and because of their physicality.
All of which I stand by. What I didn't say is that men 'cant' be frightened by women. Its both possible and permissable.
And if you think anything I've said is the reason men don't report attacks, then you're deluded. Men dont report attacks because of toxic masculinity. I didn't create that, I'm strongly against it (it harms women even more than it does men after all) and stating truths about the difference between the sexes doesn't make me to blame for it.

Studies may show that men are not frightened of women. Yet in the real world I've asked lots of men about this in the last day and all of them have said they would be frightened of a person of any gender was following them. It's a natural reaction.

I think some people on MN seem to be of the opinion that all women are soft, delicate little flowers who would and could never possibly harm a man in any way - even with a weapon or whilst his back is turned or he's otherwise vulnerable.

And men and boys, in turn, are given the narrative that they aren't real men if they ever have any fear or reticence about what women and girls could do to them. It goes far beyond things like sports, where males have a clear biological advantage - and the "Haha, you were beaten by a girl!" - and pervades into other areas where women are just naturally viewed as inferior. A surprising number of women also consciously or subconsciously communicate this message.

It's toxic, damaging and belittling to both sexes.

So what would you rather me do, pretend that the studies that show men don't fear women in these contexts don't exist? Keep a discreet silence about the fact that when men themselves have actually been asked this question, they say they DO NOT fear women strangers? And instead go by PP 'evidence' of 'having asked a lot of men'?
I understand. Men when asked the question have not given the answer you want them to in order to support your narrative. But that's not my fault, is it?

Edit to say this was in response to a pp comment that has been deleted for some reason.