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 actually sgreeing with SGB

The bit you are majorly continuing to miss is that the only acceptable reason for not being available to the chatter-upper is that you have another partner. There are surely any number of perfectly good reasons why you might not be interested in them. Having "chosen" another partner is only one of them. Maybe you just aren't looking because you just... aren't looking. Or maybe you think the chatter-upper is chuffin' ugly. Either way, you are not interested and nothing they can say or do will make you interested, but they still do not accept this until you come up with a reason they think is good enough. "She does not want to know" is all the reason a man with any manners at all needs. Make no mistake, there are a lot of men with good manners, and a tidy few more with more self-esteem than to waste their time flogging a dead horse. Does it matter why the horse died? It still isn't going to pull your cart.

VG - that anecdote makes a good point. I'll share another one.
It's raining (hard!) here and I went out for milk and got soaked. There are builders at the end of our road and we call morning to each other when we pass, and this time he calls 'morning - you wet enough there?!' then realized what he'd said and did a double take at himself, so I said it's fine, there's no polite-sounding way to say that! I think builders get such a bad rap as the stereotypical rude comment-callers, I wanted to mention that! I really don't buy this rubbish that men somehow don't notice or pick up on what's socially acceptable and what's not.

I find it interesting how the people who conform to the original premise of a thread are the informed, reasoned and open-minded ones, whilst those who disagree or pose an alternative proposition are arrogant and intrusive trolls whose opinions have no credibility.

If you went onto a far-right forum (or similar) and tried to put liberal views across then you'd be the troll wouldn't you?

Why would I want to go to a far-right forum in the first place, unless it was to try and stir up trouble? Nope, that's not my kind of thing.

Why would anyone want to go troll a far-right forum? Surely it'd just be depressing!

jenny - I'm really happy to discuss this issue. But discussion is not what wamster is doing. She is just saying the same thing over and over again. That's not discussion, it's a monologue.

And what has trolling a far-right forum got to do with anything?

"If you went onto a far-right forum (or similar) and tried to put liberal views across then you'd be the troll wouldn't you?" Yes you probably would - especially if you had no intention of engaging in the debate or show any willing in understanding the other point of view.

And deliberately 'misunderstanding' posters and setting up straw men.

Annie... I see your point of view here, but I suppose the bottom line for me is that -although I agree with you and what I am about to say is not an attack on you as a person- I just don't care that some blokes only go away when told that a woman has a boyfriend/husband. I don't see it as important at all.
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that women are not molested, verbally abused, trapped or assaulted. There are stories of those things happening to women here and those men should be locked up but the rest, the rest who won't go away until woman says she has partner but do nothing else?

I just think: so what? That is how some men are: persistent, arrogant and a pain in the arse but harmless.

Wamster are you going to answer the question about what you would do if you asked to sleep with/ talk to someone and they said no:

a) accept their answer as "no"
b) assume they actually meant "yes"
c) keep asking them, over and over
d) follow them around when they tried to walk away

Wamster, your flat assertion that it doesn't matter, is part of the problem.

Most decent, normal people of good will, accept that the effect they have on other people, does matter.

Most people would be really mortified and ashamed if they thought that they habitually had the effect of frightening, intimidating or just irritating other people by their behaviour.

Decent people don't want to behave like this and believe that good behaviour does matter. Manners maketh man. Or something.

I really don't understand why someone who thinks normal decent behaviour doesn't matter, is on a parenting board.

Surely as parents one of the things we try to do consistently, is drum inot our kids the notion that treating other people with respect and consideration, is the normal standard of behaviour that we expect from them and other people?

I think what is shocking us here Wamster is your insistence that just saying "no actually I'd rather not talk to you please" is not a good enough reason for any person male or female to leave the other person alone. The lack of respect implied in the open dismissal of the other person's right to object that someone talks to them. Do you really not see the connection to this behaviour and the behaviour of a rapist? I am not saying that a person who carries on talking to another despite the fact that the other has requested the conversation be terminated is going to be/is a rapist; I am saying that the arrogance which you so rightly identify behind this kind of behaviour but see as "harmless", is in fact a deeply dangerous one in some circumstances. Just dismissing it as what some men do and arguing that there is no reason to get worked up about it, just serves to indirectly validate their behaviour.

Look at this way, my dc hit me when they are angry with me; they are small and it doesn't hurt. I could just laugh and take no notice because their behaviour does not threaten me. However I always tell them not to and if they continue they receive the usual punishment of being banished to the bedroom for a few minutes. Why? Because if I laugh at them they think hitting is funny and will carry on: they will hit their friends. Because if I take no notice, they think there is nothing wrong with hitting and they will carry on hitting each other and their friends, until one day someone will get hurt. We all learn our behaviour from how other people behave. Tolerating people being disrespectful to women teaches other people that this is an acceptable way to behave. It is not. Respect is due to all regardless of sex or any other variable.

Xpost with Herbex. That is exactly what I am trying to say.

And also, if you can see that someone is getting uncomfortable with your presence, why would you want to stick around where you're not welcome?

Seriously?

I can see the idea of "hey, this is a public space, I've got the right to stand here". Well yes, on one level, we've all got the right to stand where we like.

But I am not going to go outside just now with my cup of tea and stand next to the four teenagers who are over the road gossiping because they don't want me there. The fact that it is a public pavement and I have the right to be there, is irrelevant, because I don't have an enormous need to have teenagers recognise my god-given right to stand next to them and make them feel slightly creeped out and disconcerted by my unwelcome presence.

What kind of a nutcase would I be if I wanted to do that? What kind of nutcase thinks it's a good idea to do that?

So let me get this straight wamster, it's only a problem if someone physically hurts another?

Verbal abuse, or implied threats, are ok?

just thought I'd bring in an anecdote that made me think of this thread. this morning i was getting a snack for dd & I while we were at the local gym. she had gone off to watch tennis, while i paid. the guy behind me noticed my accent & started talking to me (i'm a brit in the US).

at no point did he become too familiar, or prolong the conversation, there was never any encroachment onto my physical space etc. he was just interested in how come i was living in small town USA when so obviously not from there.

he was just friendly and polite. i have no idea if he's married/single/gay/straight.

i'm guessing that if he saw someone he wanted to chat up, he would do so in a friendly, polite way, and would take note of all the signals that show if someone is enjoying the attention or not.

That is how it should be, not that someone hangs around in a vaguely uncomfortable, or even intimidating way, until you have to say 'taken' just to get rid of them.

"I find it interesting how the people who conform to the original premise of a thread are the informed, reasoned and open-minded ones, whilst those who disagree or pose an alternative proposition are arrogant and intrusive trolls whose opinions have no credibility."

Ok, try now. The far-right forum bit was a 'compare and contrast' type thing about herd-mentality, but it's obviously confusing so I'll remove it. Bet you still go on about that though, or how I've deleted it, or how I've posted twice. ANYTHING but acknowledging that people who agree with you are open minded and reasonable, but those who don't are not.

I will grant you that Warmster seems a pain in the arse...

Seems?

Tbh Jenny, I've agreed with a few of your points. I think with certain idiots posting, it gets hard to differentiate between who holds which opinions.

I am totally in agreement with you that all men shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as some idiots. Unfortunately some of your posts came across (probably not intentionally) as assuming we all thought like that, and I have to confess, I was already riled and probably should have stepped back and realised that wasn't the case.

As a recent "convert" to the feminism boards, I'd probably have been posting the same as you about a week ago! I guess I've now seen how some posters come on here deliberately to paint all feminists as anti-men and "shrill" or over-sensitive. Unfortunately your posts got confused with those.

That is how some men are: persistent, arrogant and a pain in the arse but harmless.

To me, persistent and arrogant people are NOT harmless. They're coercing people to get their own way. They do not care what effect they are having on an individual. They are not respecting the individual's right to make their own decisions who they talk to or interact with.

Persistence and arrogance was how my ex used to coerce me. It's how another ex still tries to coerce me, and it was only recently I twigged that the reason I reacted so badly to this wasn't because I felt like a bitch, but because I subconsciously related it to my previous ex. To me, persistence and arrogance, and refusing to accept a woman's decision to say no = rapist...

Now. Please explain how that's ok?

Thank you Empusa

I think assumptions (and stereotyping) are part of human nature and very difficult not to do. For example, I will start to think that someone is naturally going to come from a 'standard' feminist viewpoint when crossing swords on here - only, of course, there is no standard feminist viewpoint. In a way, I'm one sort of feminist myself (although I'm obviously called anti-feminist on here) because I advocate an approach that takes a less divisive stance and acknowledges that the spectrum of all men's (and women's)characters is far wider that the difference between the average man and the average woman. There are many other sorts of feminists too... I gather it was a huge problem at one point as there were huge splits in ideology. Very like socialism! (Or the People's Front of Judea haha Sorry, Monty Python reference...)