Some men really hate women being single don't they?

[solidgoldbrass]

inspired by a couple of other threads including the separatism one. Have you ever noticed that if a man you don't like or know or fancy is trying to persuade you to date him or spend time with him or even just talk to him, the only really effective way to make him fuck off is to tell him that you are another man's property. Just saying No, leave me alone, no thanks, actually I am having a conversation with my female friend and am not interested in talking to you, never seems to work until you throw in My Boyfriend or My Husband.

Look Wamster I'm making this as simple as I can.

Scenario One
Man approaches women, is told not interested, goes away = Great.
In this situation why would he stay? He'd gain nothing from staying. He goes off and finds someone who is interested.
Everyone is happy.

Scenario Two (the one the thread is actually about)
Man approaches woman, is told (in no uncertain terms) that the woman is not interested. He continues to try and get woman to change her mind despite being told repeatedly to leave = Stupid.
In this situation what is he gaining from staying? The woman is unlikely to change her mind after being harassed. Why doesn't he leave and find someone who is interested?
No one gets what they want in this scenario.

As you can see (I hope), the two scenarios are very different.

Why are you defending the bloke in the second scenario?

If a man is lonely, it is still not the responsibliity of any woman he happens to set eyes on to assuage his loneliness. She is not there for his convenience and his wishes do not matter more than hers ie to be left alone and not interact with him.

Because rejection is bad, and a man or woman could be trying to save themselves a bit of face and pride by not immediately leaving- that is if he is interested sexually.
If he only wanted a chat, he may think he must hang around for a specific amount of time before he goes away to make it clear that he only wants to talk to her . A kind of 'hey, I know you don't want me sexually, but I just want to talk' and, yes, there are occasions where men-and women- think 'arrogant so-and-so, I only wanted to talk to them as they seemed nice' .

Either way, unless he actually does anything i.e. does anything other than talking to her, so what?

"Because rejection is bad, and a man or woman could be trying to save themselves a bit of face and pride"

Here's aconversation I've had, tell me where the "pride" is;

Bloke - Hi, will you go out with me?
Me - Thankyou, but no.
B - Oh go on.
M - No, really, sorry,
B - I know you want to
M - No, please go away
B - I know you can't resist me
M - I really can, please leave
B - You couldn't do better than me
M - Oh do fuck off
B - Come on, I know you want me, or are you frigid?
M - No.

and on and on

While this bloke wasn't hurting me, do you still think that conversation was ok?

Because it's usually really obvoius when a man only wants a chat.

Recently I started chatting to a bloke standing on the tube platform. We bonded over the lateness of the tube, discovered we were taking the same train home and sat together chatting the whole time. We see each other quite frequently on our commute and are friends rather than acquaintnces now. The difference between him and a sleazy guy who won't take no for an answer was that it was obvious from the very start that the guy wasn't attempting to pick me up. However, the guy who, at a bus stop asked me if I was married, and then when I replied in the affermitive asked me if it was a happy marriage, was obviously trying to get into my pants.

Women, in general, find it quite easy to read the cues. Some men it seems either can't read them or choose to ignore them completely.

Wamster why do you think that men have the right to inflict their company on a woman who doesn't want it?

Do you think they also have the right to inflict their company on men who don't want it? Should a group of men be kind to a loser who approaches them and just wants their company? Or do men not have that duty?

I think Wamster is either a man who goes around chatting up women who are bored by him, or one of those man-haters who thinks all men are too stupid and fragile to be able to know that they ought to bugger off when their company is obviously unwelcome.

Interesting that Wamster thinks a man's pride is more important than a woman's comfort or feeling of safety.

"so what?"

That kind of says it all really. So what that men think they have the right to inflict their unwelcome presence upon women. So what that women are inconvenienced by it. So what if they feel unsafe or threatened. So what if their night is ruined.

FGS you silly women, do you really think your silly little concerns and your silly little lives matter, when compared to those of real people? FGS, don't you know that your role is to big men up and ensure that you don't inadvertently hurt their feelings or damage their pride by trying to go about your lives unhindered by their irksome presence? Honestly, what nonsense this feminism stuff fills your silly heads with.

A 'chat' is a mutual thing. There is no obligation to engage with someone in any way if you don't want to. And when a man comes and chats me up or even just comes and chats, I am usually quite happily engaged in something, be it a chat with someone else or enjoying my own company. That doesn't mean I might not welcome the chat, but if I don't and I politely make that clear, I would resent it if the person tried to further engage me in a social interaction I have neither invited nor desired.

I may try this on the train tomorrow. Sit next to a random man and talk at him for the entire journey, ignoring all signs that he wants to be left alone to read his book. I shall start the conversation with, 'I don't find you attractive,' to avoid any confusion. And the next time I'm in a coffee shop I shall take my drink and sit down opposite someone. If they look like a nice person. After all, I wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

No I don't think that people have the right to inflict their company on someone who does not wish it, but, at the same time, I don't think it is that big a deal if they do. It's a minor inconvenience, an irritation, I agree, but it's not in the same ballpark as rape, sexual assault, murder or kidnap. The sort of things that women really should be bothered about.

it's not in the same ballpark as rape, sexual assault, murder or kidnap. The sort of things that women really should be bothered about.

No one is arguing that it is the same as any of these but why should you ahve to put up with someone talking to you/coming on to you/whatever if you don't want them doing it?
Reading your posts I don't think you are reading the same thread as all the other posters

Well thank you Wamster for telling us what we should really be worrying about.

Not rude at all.

I'm sorry Wamster, but I take social nicetiies quite seriously; I think acceptable behaviour is what keeps 60m people on a tiny island from killing each other. Just because something doesn't compare to more serious matters does not make it unimportant. There is, as with all things, a delicate balance and that tacit understanding of how people relate to each other is what we learn as we grow up. Therefore, men should be able to chat to a woman without getting an automatic snarl in return, whilst women should be able to give a gentle hint that they aren't interested in talking right now, thank you very much. Whilst there is an underlying point to pubs, clubs etc - this is no different really to any encounter between any two people in any circumstance. God knows we've all sat next to people doing what ELNP is threatening to do... be it little old ladies looking for company or foreign students practicing their english.

btw I liked a comdey routine once about how women think they can communicate like bats - all high-pitched whistles and clicks that the human ear can't catch. Bizarrely, men don't get these signals and women are forever imagining that a simple statement (from either gender) actually means 300% more than it does - even reimagining it as being the complete opposite of what was said. I can't remember how many times I've heard "Well, yes you said that, but what you meant was....". Er, no it wasn't!!!!

I'm just expressing an opinion; and, yes, I do believe that getting chatted-up by a bloke I don't fancy is NOTHING compared to rape, sexual assault, murder or kidnap. Silly me .

The attitude of entitlement that says I have the right to inflict my company on you whether you want my company or not, is the same attitude of entitlement that says I'm going to inflict my prick on you whether you want it or not.

They are 2 very different things and of course one is worse than the other and in fact criminal; but the attitude of entitlement is the same. It is quite right and proper for feminism to examine this attitude of male entitlement.

And you haven't answered my question about whether a group of guys on a night out should put up with some dull bore trying to muscle in on their group, so that his pride won't be dented or his feelings hurt, Wamster.

Ah. Now, to clarify, am I allowed to worry about verbal abuse? Or sexual assault? Or are those too trivial?

And why are you so determined to argue that as long as we're not raped, we should put up with any old shit from men?

Are your social standards really that low? Do you honestly come home from a night out and think "Well, I wasn't raped this evening, so it all went really well"?

What an interesting social life you must lead.

HerBex. You are talking bollocks, just because a man talks to you and thinks it OK, does not mean to say he feels entitled to rape you. What nonsense.

The difference between you and me is that I don't get offended or read ill will into every action a man does; if a guy chats to me and he is not quick to take the hint I don't think that he is a potential rapist- as you appear to do.
You're the one with the issues, frankly, not me.

Here's a blog post that I think might be helpful for 'socially clueless' and/or wilfully ignorant men and their defenders like Wamster.

kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

The MANY comments below also deal effectively with the men saying 'but then how will anyone ever meet anyone if I'm not allowed to talk to yoooo????'.

But that's feminism isn't it? "Let's talk about male entitlement, but not discuss whether male entitlement actually exists...". And so it is that (some) feminists start their reasoning on the world based on a list of approved assumptions that are never challenged. Ooh... Herbex loves it when I claim it's all just a load of intellectual orthodoxy don't you?

Re the KateHarding blog, I absolutely detest the idea that we should be thinking of all men as potential rapists and that those who are not violent, sexually-aggressive sorts must moderate their behaviour (and feel guilty) because there are bad people in the world.

What do we call it when you look at a black guy and immediately imagine that he might mug you?

I interpreted that blog differently jenny. It's easy to assume that the world is a scary place and while we are all aware that most rapes are commited by someone known to you, it can be hard to remember when you're walking down a dark alley (or are a bit wary of said dark alley due to the horror stories) I thought of it more as a handy aid for men to see a woman's pov in a situation where she may be out of her comfort zone.

As for the black guy comments, that would be down to the individual, if someoneone feels more uncomfortable around black men than white men, that's their issue. Some women are just more uncomfortable around men, regardless of colour.

Fine - if the word 'rapist' is uncomfortable, swap it for 'dickhead'.

The point is - I am not required to hear any man's pitch, although I have been painstakingly socialised by society to do so in a way which often causes me inconvenience, or worse. There are ways you can approach me (as the blog says) that are fine. Overstep, persist, or be wilfully ignorant to inapproriate ways of approaching me, and expect me to treat you exactly as I would a known threat. I trust myself more than I trust a random stranger.

Your second sentence makes an interesting contrast with your third though. I am white but do not knowingly act in a racist way (I say knowingly' because i am are that i have white privilege, dont do much to actively address this, and possibly act in racist ways often). Do I check my behaviour (and feel guilty about the behaviour of other white people, and question whether I have inadvertently done similar) around black people. Yes I do. No doubt you think that's ridiculous. But that would be a difference between us.

Brilliant link CharityGirl

And Jennyvstheworld, I don't think of all men as potential rapists. I do register as a non-specific threat someone who is invading my personal space. Someone who won't take no for an answer (so true in the blog about keeping an eye on the minor instances of ignoring your wishes). Someone who is obviously intoxicated. Someone who is physically stronger and larger.