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.

You're kidding me right? The issue was brought up first by Charitygirl, not me. The blog that she linked to contains the line:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

The attitude of this view was then discussed (and defended) in several posts by quite a few different people. Funny how it's only me that seems to get your reinterpretation of history knocked back. Why is that?

Yes, ok ELNP, I missed the word 'potential' (rapist) from that bit you just reposted. You are judging someone from what you see, not knowing whether they may or may not, but you have in mind the fact that they might be. What you just said, and the thought process that you just described is essentially the question as I have posed it!

" It might be excusable to chat someone up in a nightclub, but frankly it's a little bit odd out of that context."

It's not odd to chat someone up in a nightclub. Nor is it particularly odd to chat someone up "out of that context".

What is odd, and very common, is men pressing their attentions on women who are giving them quite clear signals that they do not desire their company. Quite clear signals, for example verbal ones, such as "would you mind going away I want to talk to my friends".

This idea of "oh it's just some nobber" isn't very satisfactory. It doesn't address why some (lots) of men think it is OK to do this. Why they do not go away when they are asked. Why they become aggressive when they realise they are not going to be able to take no for an answer any more. Why some of these men follow you around to the point you have to hide. Why most people (men and women) seem to accept this as an inevitable part of life, part of some "game" or because men are liable to be "nobbers" or driven by hormones or any of the other ridiculous ideas on here. How this links in to other invasions of women's personal space - like street harassment, or flashing.

"Oh it's just some nobber" is a dismissive response to a real problem - the problem of women not being able to go about their daily business without uncomfortable, difficult or illegal things happen to them. And the fact that when uncomfortable or illegal things happen, the response is invariably to ask what the woman did wrong.

There is plenty to talk about.

Everybody should exercise common-sense and a reasonable level of caution in situations with people they don't know.

The police seem to think it's a good idea anyway.

Plenty to talk about...

Like talking about teaching respect in schools.

Like discussing the effect of publications like Zoo and Nuts magazine.

Oh no, we can't can we? I've mentioned both these issues in my previous posts and got told off for it.

You're not very good at this are you? Maybe that's why you don't like me being here. Well, I'm off anyway. Life carries on... If I get chatted up tonight I'll tell you about it tomorrow...

I'm not at all sure that publications like nuts and zoo are responsible for this type of behaviour, although I agree they are harmful to women. This was going on long before nuts and zoo were thought of.

I also don't think that education in schools will combat it. We talk about education education, and it would be great if these issues were discussed (along with consent and all the rest of it). But this type of behaviour is driven by example, young men and boys learning from older men, and the behaviour is widely accepted (women often don't challenge it, people who run pubs don't think anything of it, most men would not intervene unless it got "out of hand").

So why is there a tacit acceptance in society that men can treat women like this and it's OK. How on earth do so many men think it is OK. These behaviours are so entrenched.

How can women ever get anywhere, when ordinary blokes think it is OK to treat them like this. I struggle with it. I have a literal failure to understand what the fuck they think they are playing at. And if I don't understand it how can I even begin to think how to change it.

Why not start a thread when you're back from your night out. You sound like you're full of ideas

[Quick run round the block]

Good; I'm in complete agreement that it's not enough to just say 'oh well, they're nobbers'. I think we should examine why they behave like that and what we do about it.

No, I don't think that Zoo and Nuts are the originators, but they perpetuate it. I agree that behaviour is passed down, but it can also change massively - I cringe when I remember how racist my Grandmother was for example. I think that it would be helpful to think about how things like Zoo and Nuts (and pornography) degrades men as well as women. This is where I start to get infuriated with mainstream feminist ideology; it is inherently set up to view a 'them and us' situation and without male input can not hope to be either entirely correct or have the best effect possible. This is why I think feminism should evolve and get subsumed into a more general school of thought about human rights and behaviour. Otherwise, it continues to be divisive and continues to make little progress.

Good idea ELNP

Ah yes, the "You're doing feminism wrong" argument.

Actually most feminists recognise that the culture of hyper masculinity damages boys.

But it doesn't damage them as much as girls.

Non feminists just can't bear that observation, can they?

You think feminism has made little progress since its inception?

But surely feminism can only be subsumed if (patriarchal) society embraces feminist thought? A conversation about human behaviour can only be had if all of humankind takes part in it. The onus must therefore be on men to come to the conversation, open and ready to listen.

I always find it instructive how men people hostile to feminism, think they have the right to lecture women on how to do feminism and what it should mean.

It's like racists going on to black empowerment sites and lecturing black people on how their struggle will be better received by everyone if only they do x, y and z.

You couldn't make it up.

Yep, pop it straight into one of your little boxes HB!

... and then you've immediately jumped to 'but it damages girls more' ie making a distinction and turning it into an issue of sides and who is worse off than who etc etc. I think that was kind of my point.

'non-feminists are all...' another little box and and another assumption. Is that 4 now since you asked me to start counting?

Tilly that's a great question, but completely off topic. Orangehat will tell me off. Here's my proposition though: "The emancipation of women has more to do with labour-saving advances than the feminist movement." New thread?

VG try that and see how it goes for you. I refer you to my previous post about actually doing something about it. Same same HB

Oh, and by the way HB (just before I go) can I refer you to my posts about how feminism isn't sufficiently challenged. I know you won't agree, but you just proposed (again) that the only people whose opinion counts on the issue of gender-relations are feminists.

As someone who is not prone to LOLing, I am genuinely LOLing at the thought of labour-saving devices giving me the vote, maternity pay, leave, etc, more protection against sexual harassment, better (read: any) representation in parliament, etc, etc, etc, but agree, this is very off-topic, plus it is 7 in the morning where I am, so much to do!!

"I think that it would be helpful to think about how things like Zoo and Nuts (and pornography) degrades men as well as women."

Of course it does. You'd be hard pressed to find many men who would stand up and say that though. So in the absence of that, I'll concentrate on what women think, and feel, and how to make things better for them.

I have to log off now though and watch Lewis go clubbing.

But why do you object so much to the accurate observation that Nuts/ Zoo etc., damage women more than men?

Why is that so offensive to you?

So, rather than those who benefit from patriarchal society coming to the table with an open mind and a willingness to share the pie, feminists should be prefer to modify their stance? Is this going to be one of those 'live in the real world' times? Because I do live in the real world, and the real world is one in which women have had to fight for every single improvement in our lot.

That's not opinion; it's fact. The only major study on rape in the UK has ben done by two women. Rape Crisis was established by feminists. Breast Cancer funding was established by women. Men are not interested in 'women's issues'.

I see no reason to give that up for a conversation that might be wider but in which nothing gets done.

'prefer' should be 'prepared'.

Who is this "you" to whom you refer Jenny? Are you talking to OrangeHat? Because "you aren't very good at this" is throwing me here. OH has answered the question you posed concerning the Schrodinger question. I think she answered it very well in fact. I want to believe you are not throwing desparaging comments about just because you have no argument to make. However, with no other evidence to go on it is hard not to conclude this.

As far as I am able to tell from this thread your arguments are as follows:

1. All men are not rapists. It is unfair and sexist to regard them all as potential aggressors; in fact, it is akin to adopting the racist argument that you are afraid of black men.
2. Feminism is detrimental to society because it teaches women to think and analysis the world in terms of the patriarchy. It has brainwashed women and most of society (I think during the last 30 years or so?) to such an extent that men are suffering discrimination of the type you describe in point 1.

The responses as I have seen (aumented by my own opinion) have been as follows.

1. I agree that all men are not rapists. It is indeed unfair and sexist that all should be considered potential agressors just because a few are. However, the motivation behind the blog that so annoyed you, isn't arguing that all men are rapists nor that even all men are potential rapists; is trying to explain to men what it is like to experience "being chatted up" feels like to a women. It tries to explain -as have various other posters on this thread- that women tend to judge men, not on their appearence (clothing/skin colour etc) or even their sex but by what they do. To give an example: you and a friend go out for a drink. You are sat chatting when a man comes over and asks if he can buy you a drink. Both of you say words along the lines of"no thanks". If the man then says "fair enough" and toddles off; personally I would think nothing of it. I wouldn't be annoyed/upset or even go as far to think about this man in anyway ever again whatever colour he might be and whatever clothes he might be wearing.

But if the man then starts to pester: "go on, you know you want a drink" -then the thinking and even the judging about the man does start. I think: why doesn't he just go away? I think negatively of him. If the same man then proceeds to sit down with us and try and chitchat, my negativity deepens. I think: why does this man not respect us? If he then goes on (as some posters have experienced) to follow you around the pub or worse to another one, I am afraid by then my mind is made up. This man is a potential aggressor and must be avoided. He has shown that he won't take a polite refusal and that he does not even respect my right to say no. The aim of the blog seems to be to say: if the man is not an aggressor, but just thinks that this is an acceptable way to behave, these are the reasons why such an approach is unlikely to impress any girl he might be interested in. The bottom line, as the OP states, is that such loutish behaviour is not ever acceptable even in a pub or even in a "meat market" night club. It would be just as unacceptable and provoke the same reaction in me if the roles were reversed (female chatter-upper who refuses to toddle off when asked to by males having a conversation) or played out in a homosexual situation. The only difference being that in the scenario where a male chatterupper propositions a female, the female is likely to feel more threatened because generally the man will be bigger and stronger than her. I would imagine a smaller than average person in a homosexual situation might feel similar when approached by someone taller or more physically robust.

1. (My answer & opinion only here I should point out) Feminism is sadly not a dominant movement in the UK nor in anywhere else I have had the fortune to live. If it were we feminists would not have to sit around dicussing the patriarchy nor campaign for women who are disadvantaged by it. Feminism does not brain wash women, it simply points out that many of the things we as a society take for granted have been made for and around the needs of a dominant gender role. Some women (and men) find this insight useful and illuminating, others find it patronising or even threatening because it questions the foundations of how they view their lives. Feminism (as I understand it) does not aim to replace a society that currently privileges certain male gender roles with one that privileges female ones. It seeks to destroy the idea of the gender role as something that society should use as the basis of its organisation.

Xposts with too many people. I stopped reading and started writing when Jenny said she was off out. Apologies to all if I am repeating or worse, seem to be doing injustice to those who have commented since.

I think blaming Zoo and Nuts is a bit of a red herring TBH. THe ideas that women are men's property, that a single woman must be immediately taken into the ownership of the nearest man, that women mustn't socialise only with other women in public spaces, all go bacj much further than the advent of ladmags.

And this is why fewer and fewer men will approach a female.
But i recall an episode of Big Brother. Female hops into a man's bed and commences to sexually assault him. He tells her NO. She continues until he is more forceful and also says he does not want to have sex in front of his family and the world. She storms off to her own bed. Girl next to her says what's wrong. She says so and so is being a PIG.
Personally, I have been stalked on 2 occasions in my life by females. Why don't they get the message that I don't want anything to do with them?

please ignore pat's posts - he/she is going around the feminists boards being as annoying as possible.