Friendly Advice So I have a strange dating quirk... [Archive]

Aedilred

2014-02-08, 10:14 PM

As someone on the other end of this, the principle I would like to work on is that if I invite someone out for dinner, I pay for it. Apart from anything else, people's budgets differ and what I consider a reasonable price might be a nightmare for someone else. It's nice if that's reciprocated but I'm not really that bothered. I hate all the faffing around at the end of the meal that comes with inspecting the bill and tallying the total - even if it's a straightforward division - then one person doesn't have cash and you have to run through various card authorisations, and then you have to work out what to do about a tip, etc. I'd rather just pay for the lot.

Unfortunately, finances preclude my doing so on most social occasions, but I can at least do it with dates, because they happen infrequently enough that it's not a regular expenditure and since I'm selecting the venue I won't choose anywhere I can't afford to pick up both tabs. And if it's a dinner date I'm going to be at least reasonably serious about the person anyway.

Of course, trying to explain the whole thing is a nightmare, so I try to work it on a quid pro quo basis, even if that's terribly unbalanced. "I'll get this one and you get the next one", "you can buy me a drink afterwards", "I'll get the bill and you pay the tip", whatever they'll accept.

It's one of those situations which is always going to be difficult, because the "rules" have broken down. People run the gamut from automatic assumption that I will pay to expecting me to offer but wanting to go halves, to protesting that they want to pay half but actually wanting/expecting me to pick up the lot, to wanting to pay for everything themselves. And unless you're very up front about everything to start with you don't know which you're dealing with, and since I tend to find money an awkward conversation topic and not a particularly romantic one, that's a problem in itself.

But I've never actually run into any problems, and I'm as sure as I can be that nobody has held any lasting grudges or been anything other than pleased that I've insisted on paying. Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen, just that it hasn't (yet) happened to me. Perhaps the way I approach it somehow negates any offence that might otherwise be taken, or maybe it's just the people I've been out with.

tl;dr: see the post above mine: ninjad rather more succinctly...

Knaight

2014-02-08, 10:36 PM

What's your response if the guy insists on paying? Several women I've talked to told me that they always offer to split 50-50, but then secretly feel like the guy doesn't really like them if he doesn't insist on paying, which is just...:smallsigh:

If they're spreading misinformation, that's their problem.

As for the original dating quirk - split it 50-50 then. I personally prefer to alternate between dates (it simplifies the paying process if using anything other than paper money), and would probably bring that up if the 50-50 idea was bandied about, but I suspect that coming to an arrangement would be pretty easy most of the time, particularly in cases like these.

Dallas-Dakota

2014-02-09, 03:09 AM

If the date was succesfull I usually insist on paying in the following way:

Simply split the cost a little differently. Instead of splitting each meal, alternate.

Let him pay the first time, and if you like him, take him out the next time.

The next question is: do you feel that if he pays, you are then obligated to him in some other way?

Doing this also is a great way to bring up a second date.:smallwink:

If not, 50/50.:smalltongue:

turkishproverb

2014-02-09, 03:20 AM

Zrak

2014-02-09, 03:43 AM

I try to contribute to gender equality by making up for all those years of male chauvinism and letting my dates pay for me. You're welcome, ladies.

KillianHawkeye

2014-02-09, 07:23 AM

I say discuss the pay when you make the date. Hasn't steered me wrong ever.

Good advice.

OP, I hope you recognize that your views are somewhat nonstandard. Realize that men are trained to pay for meals just in general, which can get kinda funny in cases of larger groups where the menfolk vie for who picks up the check. I've certainly had this happen on numerous occasions.

If you are truly offended by having someone pay for your meal, please say so ahead of time to avoid confusion and bruised egos.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-09, 07:44 AM

I think that instead of insisting on splitting you should accept his offer and simply agree that next time, you will pay all the meal instead.
That way you both show generosity and everyone's happy.

Telonius

2014-02-09, 07:59 AM

I say discuss the pay when you make the date. Hasn't steered me wrong ever.

Agreed! Culture clashes happen, and this is a pretty well-known area where people have different opinions. Feeling one way or the other about it is perfectly fine, but you can't expect your date to know your opinion by telepathy. Better to work it out beforehand, tactfully and in private, than have an awkward public scene.

DeusMortuusEst

2014-02-09, 08:26 AM

If I ask someone out on a date I will assume that I'll pay for whatever it is that we're doing. As others have said already; I don't know if my date can afford whatever it is that we're doing, but I know that I can, so I pay.

If I get asked out it's a bit different because people have different expectations, but in general I just wait until the time to pay comes and I see how my date handles it. Most of the time it's very clear how the other person wants it and I just tend to go along with that.

valadil

2014-02-09, 08:33 AM

Simply split the cost a little differently. Instead of splitting each meal, alternate.

Let him pay the first time, and if you like him, take him out the next time.

The next question is: do you feel that if he pays, you are then obligated to him in some other way?

I see this as an implication that there will be another date. Paying evenly is a settling of debts so there's nothing left to follow up on.

As a guy I always expected to pay for meals and was delighted when I didn't have to. I tried not to read into it too much.

FinnLassie

2014-02-09, 10:00 AM

I mainly refuse having someone pay the meal for me unless it has been stated clearly before the meal that it is a present for something or a thank you for something I have done. I just don't think it's fair having someone else pay for me all the time. I've often paid for meals too.

Hyena

2014-02-09, 10:41 AM

My girlfriend has a strange habit of paying for MY meals when she has the opportunity. Last time, I left for bathroom to clean a spot off my shirt, and when I had returned, she already asked for a check and paid for everything with her credit card.
I feel less manly every time we eat together. And I'm not manly to begin with, so it's quite an accomplishment.

Proud Tortoise

2014-02-09, 12:07 PM

Jay R

2014-02-09, 12:08 PM

There are three things (possibly) going on here, and most of the problems come from confusing them.

1. You feel better when you pay your share.

OK, fine. Discuss it with them and work it out honestly.

2. You feel insulted when no insult was offered.

You have emotions. That's normal. And many of our emotions are irrational. We need to live with that.

3. Reacting to that emotion as if it is a statement about your date, rather than your reaction. ("[I]t's almost like my date is telling me I can't support myself if I can't pay for my meal.")

This is not fine. This is implicitly accusing him of offering an insult when he has not. Like all the rest of us, you need to work on reacting to your feelings as your feelings, not as motives you impute to others.

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with preferring to pay for yourself. And you have no control over your feelings; they are effects that happen to you.

But your head needs to control your reaction to those feelings, and recognize that, no matter what you feel like, nobody insulted you.

Akisa

2014-02-09, 01:00 PM

Alad

2014-02-09, 01:09 PM

Hrm.... its not always simple, I pay for things when I'm out with my girlfriend or at least I try to, not because I think its my duty or anything but because at the minute I just have more disposable income.
1. I want her to have enough money to get by with day to day things
2. I want to go out to restaurants and see films ect when I go to visit her because, you know its fun.
3. 1 and 2 cannot co exist currently if I expect her to pay for half of things

All else being equal, or with someone who I didnt know well. I'd be more comfortable splitting things in general. but it aint always cut and dry. :smallsmile:

rs2excelsior

2014-02-09, 01:20 PM

I was quite bewildered when I first heard some women were offended by men opening doors for them or paying for meals. To me, it isn't a statement about whether or not they can pay. It's simple courtesy, and how I was raised. If I've invited a girl to eat, I'm at least going to offer to pay, even if it's just as friends. There's been times she's insisted on paying for her meal, and that's fine.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-09, 01:21 PM

Amidus Drexel

2014-02-09, 01:55 PM

I prefer to pay if I'm able; it's the courteous thing to do. That said, I'm a bit of a stingy miser, so if it comes down to it I'm perfectly fine with splitting the bill (or even letting them pay for it, although I don't prefer this option).

Scarlet Knight

2014-02-09, 02:09 PM

I see this as an implication that there will be another date. Paying evenly is a settling of debts so there's nothing left to follow up on.

As a guy I always expected to pay for meals and was delighted when I didn't have to. I tried not to read into it too much.

I'm curious about women trying to settle debts on dates. The idea of a date is that we will like each other more afterward; the tracking of debts at so early a stage in that relationship is odd.

Ladies, if a man sends over a drink, do you usually then buy him a round so you're even?

Kajhera

2014-02-09, 02:54 PM

Generally between my boyfriend and I whoever isn't broke at the moment will pay ... but it makes both of us uncomfortable to not be able to pull our weight financially. In the case we have the option, it's whoever wants to treat the other at the time. :smalltongue: I like buying him food and he likes buying me food!

But yeah, any perceived implication of not being able to financially support ourselves would be bristled at a bit if not true. :smallwink: Sadly, broke college students.

SiuiS

2014-02-09, 03:32 PM

If they're spreading misinformation, that's their problem.

It's not misinformation. It's a common and accepted and understood set up that just happens to ruin everything for everybody.

I like to operate on 'whoever is hosting is colunteering to cover what's needed' and 'reciprocated debt'. For the first, if I invite someone to a date, I would expect to cover it simply because I'm the one who decided to invite the other. It just so happens that men are also expected to do the inviting which crosses the streams. Although date environments can get tricky.

Reciprocation is more for the group of friends sort of engagement. I've a mate I owe somewhere around... Oh no, we've swing around, he owes me $12, unless he picked up the tip when I wasn't looking last month.

The only guy we don't let pull out money is the jobless college student who complains about not having the money to buy things like clothes or gasoline and can't improve his life by building. Infrastructure... Who decides to sneak off and throw a $60 appetizer tab on his credit card. The numpty.

male chauvinism

Does not mean what you think it means.

Chauvinist means someone who prefers their own. Being a male chauvinist would mean you have disdain for women as the source of your sexism. It's one of those words that gets bandied about without any research.

I'm curious about women trying to settle debts on dates. The idea of a date is that we will like each other more afterward; the tracking of debts at so early a stage in that relationship is odd.

Ladies, if a man sends over a drink, do you usually then buy him a round so you're even?

Uh, if a man sends over a drink, we aren't dating, he's trying to pick me up. That's not comparable at all.
ignoring that I personally default to awkward embarrassment over any attention from anyone unless I'm specifically wearing my Social Face.

inexorabletruth

2014-02-09, 03:33 PM

Fixed that for you.
Nope. You just made it sexist. :smallsigh:

@OP:
Anyway, who pays isn't a huge deal and if it's important to pay your half, just treat it like it's not a bit deal. When you're asked out on the date (or when you ask someone out on a date), casually mention you want to go dutch and leave it at that. This will set the boundaries and relax the tension long before it comes up.

If you wait until it's time to split up the check, then things get awkward and a mountain can become a molehill. The host will feel put on the spot if you offer to pay your half, and may feel pressured to say "Oh no, I insist!"

I've only dated in America, Germany and Ireland, so for the rest of the cultures I can only speak on the most ignorant of terms, but by my experience, it's considered gentlemanly to pay for the meal, but still culturally acceptable to expect the host to at least pay their own part. For instance, if a lady walks up to me and invites me to dinner or drinks, I generally assume we're going dutch unless she clarifies that it's her treat.

But generally speaking, back when I was dating I was always a little more relieved that I didn't have to pay the whole tab. There's never really a bad time to save a little money in a troubled economy.

Asta Kask

2014-02-09, 04:17 PM

Zrak

2014-02-09, 04:31 PM

Does not mean what you think it means.

Chauvinist means someone who prefers their own. Being a male chauvinist would mean you have disdain for women as the source of your sexism. It's one of those words that gets bandied about without any research.

Actually, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

The word originates from a famously fanatical (and probably fictional) Bonapartist during the Bourbon restoration, Nicholas Chauvin, and has since come to represent an exaggerated, unreasoning belief in the superiority of one's chosen group, such as the Bonapartist fervor for which Chauvin was ridiculed at the time of the word's creation. It evolved from the very specific use of ridiculing Bonapartists to a broader pejorative similarly ridiculing other nationalistic or political beliefs (broadly similar to the colloquial use of "Jingoism") into its current use, to lambaste such an extreme and unreasoning belief in the superiority of any group to which one belongs. As such, male chauvinism does not reflect a sexism which originates from disdain — as Chauvin's support for Bonaparte did not originate in a particular antipathy for the Bourbon restoration — but in an unyielding belief in the innate superiority of men. If you find the etymology unconvincing, you may instead choose to look at the definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chauvinism), which also supports my usage. As such, the belief that a woman is incapable of paying or supporting herself financially in general is the male chauvinism for which I am "making up" by generously allowing women to demonstrate their ability to pay not only for the own dinners, but by paying for mine to retroactively disprove the grievous insults dealt to their foremothers.

If you're going to nitpick my goofy jokes, at least be right. :smalltongue:

Grinner

2014-02-09, 06:18 PM

Nope. You just made it sexist. :smallsigh:

No, I emphasized a point.

Moriwen

2014-02-09, 08:23 PM

I'm curious about women trying to settle debts on dates. The idea of a date is that we will like each other more afterward; the tracking of debts at so early a stage in that relationship is odd.

Ladies, if a man sends over a drink, do you usually then buy him a round so you're even?

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

Not passing judgement on the reasonableness or otherwise of that theory, but it's a train of thought many of us go through.

(Personally, I prefer the alternating model. Because I like being bought for, and I like doing the buying. Best of both worlds.)

Scarlet Knight

2014-02-09, 10:02 PM

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

Not passing judgement on the reasonableness or otherwise of that theory, but it's a train of thought many of us go through.

(Personally, I prefer the alternating model. Because I like being bought for, and I like doing the buying. Best of both worlds.)

Ok, that fits into the "obligation" theory that if a man spends X amount , he's then owed Y amount of romance. That was a fear back when I was young.

Uh, if a man sends over a drink, we aren't dating, he's trying to pick me up. That's not comparable at all.
ignoring that I personally default to awkward embarrassment over any attention from anyone unless I'm specifically wearing my Social Face.

I stand corrected. :smallsmile:

Serpentine

2014-02-10, 12:19 AM

Man, people sure do overthink this stuff. The OP doesn't seem that weird to me. Personally, I always assume we're splitting unless stated otherwise, in which case I'll lean towards whoever is most comfortable funds-wise at that moment (since I'm almost always broke lately, if I happen to have some spare money at the time I might insist on shouting even if the other person is more well-off just because I feel like I've been bludging off people for so long, and want an opportunity to pay back a bit). In the xase of someone actually asking someone out on a date, probably splitting it or whoever did the asking. If in doubt I'll ask first, so I can veto any places outside my price range.
I have a friend who takes me out to dinner sometimes and always pays. But he has a lot more money than things to spend it on, and likes the excuse to, for example, try out that stupidly expensive Greek restaurant he read about. Works for me!

Ladies, if a man sends over a drink, do you usually then buy him a round so you're even?
It's never happened. If it did, I guess if I didn't particularly fancy him, I would be incredibly awkward and thank him for the gift. If I did, I would offer to buy him one, yes - but less a matter of "settling a debt" than "extending the interaction".

I find it interesting that so many people have criticised OP's feeling of being insulted, but nary a peep about that other person feeling "unmanly" in the same situation. Personally I think each is as reasonable/unreasonable as the other.
Btw, if you only hold the door open or pay for women, that's sexism. Holding doors and negotiating bill payment is a matter of good manners, not gender.

The Succubus

2014-02-10, 04:47 AM

My take? If it's a first date, split it 50/50 then that way there's no pressure on anyone. Subsequent dates, then you can start paying for one another.

Killer Angel

2014-02-10, 07:12 AM

Whenever I go out to dinner date in a restaurant I feel some what insulted if my date pays for the meal. I prefer to split the meal every time. As for why I feel like this? I don't know, perhaps I think it feels like, it's almost like my date is telling me I can't support myself if I can't pay for my meal. Although there are exceptions; like birthdays or special events like promotion or awards where I can accept a meal being paid for.

I can see your motivations, but no one is trying to tell you that you cannot support yourself. The guy is trying to be corteous, and to say something more like "you only have to enjoy the evening, and don't even think about a trivial thing such money".
You are in your right to refuse it, because it doesn't suit you and you are not confortable with it, but there was no insult. If you feel insulted, you are not making justice to your date.

Comissar

2014-02-10, 07:32 AM

Taking it out of the dating context, I tend to feel uncomfortable having things bought for me when out and about, period. It's not to do with the gender of the person, simply the feeling like I've not carried my own weight, so to speak. For example, I was out with a group of friends a while back, had a drink bought for me and, when it came to time to get another drink, got told I worry too much when I said I should get the next one.

For context, I am much younger than the rest of the group, still currently a student, so that may be why they insisted on paying. Still felt awkward about it, though.

SiuiS

2014-02-10, 07:56 AM

Actually, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

If you're going to nitpick my goofy jokes, at least be right. :smalltongue:

The two dictionaries and Wikipedia article I checked disagree with you.

Chauvinist is 'prefers own type'. Male chauvinist is sexist, yes, but not in a fashion that would work for your joke. You don't undo treating men preferentially by letting your male self be treated preferentially. It's a joke that relies on a glossed over colloquial understanding of the word.

Jay R

2014-02-10, 09:23 AM

The word "chauvinism" is in fact used in both senses. Like most words in the English language, it has more than one shade of meaning.

I recommend that you stop the fruitless discussion over which of its real meanings is the "correct" one, and discuss the real issue behind it.

SiuiS

2014-02-10, 09:27 AM

The word "chauvinism" is in fact used in both senses. Like most words in the English language, it has more than one shade of meaning.

Not applicable. We both know and agree on the definition, I'm just saying he's misapplying it.

I recommend that you stop the fruitless discussion over which of its real meanings is the "correct" one, and discuss the real issue behind it.

Where's the fun in that? I've dated three psychopaths of various flavors and am now happily hand-fasted. My dating experience beyond what I've already said is "boy, it's really awkward you keep trying to get me away from my drink for a moment. I guarantee you won't find all the knives I'm carrying so knock it off".

Serpentine

2014-02-10, 09:31 AM

You knew exactly what he meant, and so did everyone else. That is the purpose of communication.

SiuiS

2014-02-10, 09:36 AM

You knew exactly what he meant, and so did everyone else. That is the purpose of communication.

This is mostly true! I've dealt with chauvinist being used to mean anything from spouse abuser to dudebro, however, so have an actual interest in the thread of conversation beyond scoring Internet Right Points.

Archonic Energy

2014-02-10, 09:41 AM

I try to contribute to gender equality by making up for all those years of male chauvinism and letting my dates pay for me. You're welcome, ladies.

Remind me to try that line someday. :smallamused:

Knaight

2014-02-10, 12:01 PM

I was quite bewildered when I first heard some women were offended by men opening doors for them or paying for meals.

As regards the door thing: I've seen this, and I've never seen anybody get so much as annoyed outside of a few very specific scenarios.
Scenario A) Insisting on opening the door, always. This includes things like a guy jogging to get in front of a woman before she reaches a door to open it for her, or opening a car door, going around, and opening the other car door - along with getting irritated if they open the car door themselves. This particular shade of behavior is obviously obnoxious.

Scenario B) Opening a door for someone a good eight meters behind*. This is just awkward for everyone involved, as it's unclear whether one should move faster to get to the door or not, and inconveniencing to suddenly have to.

Holding a door open for someone right behind you? I've never seen anyone have an issue with it, regardless of the genders involved. Holding a door open for someone a bit further behind you, walking on crutches or holding a heavy or unwieldy load? That almost always gets a quick "Thanks".

*The exact distance varies, and is obviously much higher if holding the door open for someone who is, for example, walking on crutches.

Adlan

2014-02-10, 02:48 PM

My mother told me always go dutch.

Coidzor

2014-02-10, 03:11 PM

I'm usually up front about it, I normally state how I feel uncomfortable about not paying. I try to be up front about it, but I usually get strange looks. Even among Co workers who are mostly guys in Air Force cable installation team, they think paying for one's self nearly always think it's strange.

:smallconfused: They're still military, even if they are Air Force, so there's some selection and social pressure going on there that would help explain that. Granted, they should be familiar with the concept of going Dutch by now, just as a product of being below the age of 60.

Why would that make you feel less manly?.. 38/

I imagine the whole going behind one's back and doing something when one has established that it causes discomfort probably has something to do with it.

More importantly... What on earth is that emoticon? :smallconfused:

I'm curious about women trying to settle debts on dates. The idea of a date is that we will like each other more afterward; the tracking of debts at so early a stage in that relationship is odd.

Ladies, if a man sends over a drink, do you usually then buy him a round so you're even?

While some men think they're entitled to something due to buying someone else dinner despite that slowly falling by the wayside, it's much more accepted that buying a woman a drink is an attempt to purchase her attention.

So there's not even the more ambiguous headspace surrounding a date and there's not the established tenor of interpersonal reaction.

It's not misinformation. It's a common and accepted and understood set up that just happens to ruin everything for everybody.

Deliberately setting a trap isn't common, accepted, and understood. :smallconfused: Unless you're around a lot of ********* in your neck of the woods or something.

And even if "misinformation" isn't the right word, it is a form of dishonesty, and doing one's self and one's romantic prospects no favors.

Nope. You just made it sexist. :smallsigh:

Not really. All it did was remove the potential for interpreting any equivocation from the statement. Some people, especially those who are at ground zero of the competing expectations, are confused by the competing expectations they have to perform to.

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

Which is weird, because if you're that aware of it, why not just teach people that buying someone dinner doesn't create any form of debt in the first place?

I find it interesting that so many people have criticised OP's feeling of being insulted, but nary a peep about that other person feeling "unmanly" in the same situation. Personally I think each is as reasonable/unreasonable as the other.

Because offering to pay for or paying for one's date is a known quantity. Unless the person is a ******, it's either A. out of wanting to be a decent human being or B. out of training and social expectation. Reading an insult into either of those is inappropriate. One can't do much to help about disliking the feeling of being paid for, but it's quite another thing to just let a completely off-base reaction to something that is not an insult go unchallenged, either internally or externally.

We do have *some* ability to influence ourselves through self-talk, after all.

Men are just supposed to be manly enough to suck up being made to feel unmanly though. :smalltongue: Aside from Hyena's case, where actively going behind his back to insist on it is just... less than harmonious for resolving something which is supposed to be resolved with open communication.

(And of course, if they are ********, then they think that buying someone dinner is purchasing sexual access. Which is patently false. And they're ********. So... Yeah...)

Btw, if you only hold the door open or pay for women, that's sexism. Holding doors and negotiating bill payment is a matter of good manners, not gender.

Depends on if you (only) date women, doesn't it? Completely different expectations for going out with one's friends from going out on a date.

And how many people does one really get the opportunity to hold the door for when one is out on a date anyway? :smallconfused: My record is 6, maybe 8, because we arrived at about the same time as a few older couples and a family. And even if I didn't *want* to hold the door open for them, I'd have been stuck with it anyway without running over a middleaged woman or small child.

Edit: Whoops, forgot the only in that second to last graf. :smallredface:

Aedilred

2014-02-10, 04:06 PM

Deliberately setting a trap isn't common, accepted, and understood. :smallconfused:
Yeah, the problem is that it's very difficult, indeed often almost impossible to tell the difference - certainly when you don't know the person well - between "I actually want you to pay but am pretending to protest out of politeness" and "I want to pay half". It's basically a 50-50 choice and often a black mark if you get it wrong. Maybe it's common and accepted (although it really shouldn't be) but it's by no stretch understood in any meaningful or important way.

I don't want to get into "stereotypes and myths about female communication" but this sort of conversational ambush/expectation of mind-reading isn't the sort of thing that exactly helps to dispel such beliefs. Not to say that it's only women who do it, o'course, although, judging by the rest of the thread... it mostly is, if only because they're more commonly in that situation anyway.

Which is weird, because if you're that aware of it, why not just teach people that buying someone dinner doesn't create any form of debt in the first place?
Because it's different people doing the teaching, I imagine. It's also... one of those things that you can't change overnight, and while we might all (save the offenders) agree that such attitudes are wrong, we can't pretend they don't exist just because we don't like them. It's essentially the same principle as encouraging women to at least to be aware of scenarios that raise or lower the risk of being assaulted. It'd be great if we could erase such behaviour, but in the meantime it's just good sense to raise awareness of them and arguably not doing so is in itself socially irresponsible.

(And of course, if they are ********, then they think that buying someone dinner is purchasing sexual access. Which is patently false. And they're ********. So... Yeah...)
This is something that has puzzled me. While I accept that there certainly are people who think that way, they tend to be of the type you indicate, and hopefully there should be other warning signs. So surely the moral is "don't date jerks" rather than "letting someone else pay for your dinner is dangerous".

And how many people does one really get the opportunity to hold the door for when one is out on a date anyway? :smallconfused: My record is 6, maybe 8, because we arrived at about the same time as a few older couples and a family. And even if I didn't *want* to hold the door open for them, I'd have been stuck with it anyway without running over a middleaged woman or small child.
Not a date, but my record is... well, actually I lost count, but it must have been in the dozens if not over a hundred. I went through a gate ahead of a group of my friends, held the gate for them and some strangers walked through, then there was a consistent stream of people for about ten minutes while my friends faffed around not coming through themselves. I started to feel a bit of a fool after a while.

SiuiS

2014-02-10, 05:08 PM

Deliberately setting a trap isn't common, accepted, and understood. :smallconfused: Unless you're around a lot of ********* in your neck of the woods or something.

But this isn't deliberately setting a trap. It's just a cultural norm for some people.

It's supposedly (because Anarion posted in this thread, which drops my surety on these matters from "yes" to "if sir would believe such a thing") good manners in older Japan (or newer? Their timeline messes me up) to refuse a gift and only accept it on the third or so offering, because accepting right away is greedy and and if they don't continue to offer their offer was insincere politeness. This isn't a trap, it's just how things work. "Please, take this", "no I couldn't," "please I insist" "oh I wouldn't dream of being than rude" "it's not rude, please accept," "well, okay. Thank you" is common enough here in America that calling it a trap is silly.

Not wanting to pay but being expected to act like a Modern Woman and say you will anyway, until your Manly date Manfully pays it all anyway to show his Manhood, is a thing that people accept. It's part of their culture, it's so obvious they think you're weird for not getting it, and it's never caused problems before until they had to deal with 'less civilized folk'.

I personally think it's stupid as all get out. But I don't think it's lying unless they really, really should know better.

And even if "misinformation" isn't the right word, it is a form of dishonesty, and doing one's self and one's romantic prospects no favors.

Full agreement there.

Which is weird, because if you're that aware of it, why not just teach people that buying someone dinner doesn't create any form of debt in the first place?

It's hard.

We're aware that being gay isn't a problem, and teach people it's not a problem, but some still think it is. Same with gender roles. This isn't any different; for every person trying to move forward to 'a time where everyone is judged as a person and not a set of genitals' there is a person wistfully sighing about 'when women were women and men were men'. Whatever that means to them.

Depends on if you date women, doesn't it? Completely different expectations for going out with one's friends from going out on a date.

100% full agreement there. It's not comparable.

On the sexist stance, though; yes, technically. But I think it's actually bad to call people on it. We don't persecute people for discriminating based on familiarity, proximity, or preference in other ways. Why is it okay to hold a door for friends but not strangers, for the close but not the far, for those people you like but not those you don't... But it's not okay to show preference based on sex? Once "chivalry" is removed as a motive, we cannot judge a person who holds a door by their grouping, only by their personal motivations. It's always micro- not macro-, and I am fully behind people being allowed biases in the micro even as I am for disliking them for those biases.

Serpentine

2014-02-10, 05:09 PM

Because offering to pay for or paying for one's date is a known quantity. Unless the person is a ******, it's either A. out of wanting to be a decent human being or B. out of training and social expectation. Reading an insult into either of those is inappropriate. One can't do much to help about disliking the feeling of being paid for, but it's quite another thing to just let a completely off-base reaction to something that is not an insult go unchallenged, either internally or externally.

We do have *some* ability to influence ourselves through self-talk, after all.

Men are just supposed to be manly enough to suck up being made to feel unmanly though. :smalltongue: Aside from Hyena's case, where actively going behind his back to insist on it is just... less than harmonious for resolving something which is supposed to be resolved with open communication.Yeeeeaaahnope. If one is inappropriate, the other is too. Particularly as my impression was that the "going behind his back" (which I do think is not good) is her response to him feeling emasculated by and therefore unwilling to accept her partial or full payment, not the source of his feeling of "unmanliness". That is, whether she did it openly or behind his back, he would still consider it to be a threat to his masculinity, and therefore in my opinion effectively as legitimate to criticise as being insulted by that same act when done by a man to a woman.

Depends on if you date women, doesn't it? Completely different expectations for going out with one's friends from going out on a date.Arguable at best, and then ONLY when specifically stated as "I hold the door open for my dates". Which it rarely, if ever, is: almost always, as here, it is "I hold the door for women". Which is sexist, no matter how you try to spin it. If nothing else, it raises the question of why that person is so rude to men.

Coidzor

2014-02-10, 05:14 PM

But this isn't deliberately setting a trap. It's just a cultural norm for some people.

Woman lies to man. Man takes her at her word. Doing so identifies him as someone who doesn't respect women and isn't worth her time (because he trusted her to be truthful and a person of her word).

That's a trap, SiuiS.

Full agreement there.

Then why were you acting like it's right and proper?

Arguable at best, and then ONLY when specifically stated as "I hold the door open for my dates". Which it rarely, if ever, is: almost always, as here, it is "I hold the door for women". Which is sexist, no matter how you try to spin it. If nothing else, it raises the question of why that person is so rude to men.

That part was actually mostly just in reply to paying for others. The cultural norms I am familiar with are that one doesn't just randomly treat one's friends, there's usually a reason if one is going to treat them to something.

Serpentine

2014-02-10, 05:22 PM

Ah, okay. I will allow that that's more likely to specifically come up in the context of dating, and that that person, in this case, did go on to specifically discuss situations where he's the one who did the inviting.

AtlanteanTroll

2014-02-10, 08:23 PM

I have somehow never had a problem with this. Sometimes I pay, sometimes she pays, and sometimes we go 50/50. Usually, if one of us pays for the meal in full, the other person gets the next meal, provided it happens soon after. If not, maybe they'll buy movie tickets or something. I think it works pretty well.

rs2excelsior

2014-02-10, 10:18 PM

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

The fact that this is a concern... well, concerns me. My faith in humanity is pretty low in general, but it still depresses me that some guys would do that. And then it looks bad for those of us who are just doing it out of politeness.

I never insist on keeping track of money among friends, much less someone I'm dating. If I feel like a person's using me, we'll have a problem, but I don't mind buying a friend a meal and I don't expect any kind of repayment.

Arguable at best, and then ONLY when specifically stated as "I hold the door open for my dates". Which it rarely, if ever, is: almost always, as here, it is "I hold the door for women". Which is sexist, no matter how you try to spin it. If nothing else, it raises the question of why that person is so rude to men.

I open doors for women. I also open doors for men, but I'll be more conscientious about it for a woman. Not because I think she can't (which also confused me the first time I heard about it), but because it's the polite thing to do.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-11, 02:44 AM

I open doors for women. I also open doors for men, but I'll be more conscientious about it for a woman. Not because I think she can't (which also confused me the first time I heard about it), but because it's the polite thing to do.

Wait, is that the reason some women think it's sexist? :smallconfused:
I always assumed it was just a default aversion against any treatment disparity, without pretense that there's an actual negative implication.
I mean, I guess there are some doors that are heavier then others, but I hardly ever found it something women have troubles with, nor have I ever heard something like "here let me open the door for you, you couldn't even if you tried" coming from any man.
Basically what I'm saying is... That sounds like a really weak attempt to find something wrong in a simple act of kindness.

Serpentine

2014-02-11, 02:53 AM

I open doors for women. I also open doors for men, but I'll be more conscientious about it for a woman. Not because I think she can't (which also confused me the first time I heard about it), but because it's the polite thing to do.Thing is, it's the polite thing to do for people, not just for women. A person's sex should have nothing to do with the courtesy you should extend to them, and the idea of whether an individual is male or female determining whether or not you will choose the pause a few extra seconds or chuck the door out for them to grab or whatever is completely absurd to me; the idea that someone would do that for me specifically because I happen to be a woman is, indeed, completely insulting to me subjectively, and objectively sexist. Not because I think the man is making that decision on the concious belief that I am completely useless or should not sully my delicate feminine hands with the banality of doorknobs, but because I find sexism offensive in itself. If you hold the door open for me, do it because it is the polite thing to do for anyone, not because I have boobs.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-11, 03:29 AM

Thing is, it's the polite thing to do for people, not just for women. A person's sex should have nothing to do with the courtesy you should extend to them, and the idea of whether an individual is male or female determining whether or not you will choose the pause a few extra seconds or chuck the door out for them to grab or whatever is completely absurd to me; the idea that someone would do that for me specifically because I happen to be a woman is, indeed, completely insulting to me subjectively, and objectively sexist. Not because I think the man is making that decision on the concious belief that I am completely useless or should not sully my delicate feminine hands with the banality of doorknobs, but because I find sexism offensive in itself. If you hold the door open for me, do it because it is the polite thing to do for anyone, not because I have boobs.

Well, you see, most men are attracted to women, that's why they are expecially kind to them. Is this insulting? Should a man conciously avoid any act of kindness in your presence just out of fear that you will condemn him for it?
There is also the fact that some people really do keep the door open out of simple politeness for everyone, but from what you are saying it seems that it would bother you just out of fear that it might be intended as an act of chivalry instead of politeness.
So what do you do when this happens? Ask the man why is he doing it? I would personally find it somehwere between awkward and rude if I had to justify my every action to my date.
Finally, there's the implication that a man would never do any of these actions (pay for a meal, hold a door open, etc...) spontaneously and gladly and that asking him not to do it is somehow never going to make him feel uncomfortable.

I wonder, why aren't we entitled to presumption of innocence? Why is it ok to judge our behaviour based not on what we are but on what we might be presumed to be? I personally find it incredibly offensive. I'm not sexist or a rapist or a stalker but any woman will feel entitled to treat me as such until I've provided proof that I'm not.
How would you feel if I condemned you because you put on skimpy clothes on our date out of presumption that you are a prostitute? How would you feel if I basically asked you not to do it until I made sure you aren't one? That would be horrible, wouldn't it?

It blows my mind to see how these huge double standards are held as an example of fighting sexism. Sure. Keep on treating men as presumed guilty until proven innocent. That's the right way to do things.

SiuiS

2014-02-11, 03:55 AM

Woman lies to man. Man takes her at her word. Doing so identifies him as someone who doesn't respect women and isn't worth her time (because he trusted her to be truthful and a person of her word).

That's a trap, SiuiS.

Two people are engaging in a social activity. One fulfills the commonly known social contract. The other breaks it and blames the first person for any bad blood.

That's a trap, Coidzor.

Then why were you acting like it's right and proper?

Because you aren't talking about the same thing at that point. You stated that doing a bad thing is bad. You also said that doing this other thing is bad. I agree bad things are bad; I do not agree other thing is a bad thing. Not inherently.

You're shaving five hundred years of nuance off of ritualized human interaction and judging that product without any of the context.

Well, you see, most men are attracted to women, that's why they are expecially kind to them. Is this insulting?

Yes. Because that's the same thing as being nice to someone because they're black (racist) red headed (also racist?) or speak with an accent (no idea) or are short. It's an interest in a trait, not a person. It's objectifying in the literal sense of valuing someone as though they were an object with a trait. In this case, the trait is breasts.

Most women would like to be flattered for their personal traits which they've accumulated through a lifetime of growth and change, not because of a legacy object nailed onto them by genetics. So 'I'm being nice because you're female' maybe isn't always insulting, but it's damn sure never flattering, and very often both patronizing and self-serving.

[auote]
Finally, there's the implication that a man would never do any of these actions (pay for a meal, hold a door open, etc...) spontaneously and gladly and that asking him not to do it is somehow never going to make him feel uncomfortable[/quote].

If you're doing something to be nice in general, why is information which allows you to be nicer in specific going to make you uncomfortable?

I wonder, why aren't we entitled to presumption of innocence?

Because before you even touched ethical behavior and intention, your very first sentiment was "yes, I'm biased in favor of your junk, is that a crime?"

Zorg

2014-02-11, 04:02 AM

KuReshtin

2014-02-11, 04:21 AM

Thing is, it's the polite thing to do for people, not just for women. A person's sex should have nothing to do with the courtesy you should extend to them, and the idea of whether an individual is male or female determining whether or not you will choose the pause a few extra seconds or chuck the door out for them to grab or whatever is completely absurd to me; the idea that someone would do that for me specifically because I happen to be a woman is, indeed, completely insulting to me subjectively, and objectively sexist. Not because I think the man is making that decision on the concious belief that I am completely useless or should not sully my delicate feminine hands with the banality of doorknobs, but because I find sexism offensive in itself. If you hold the door open for me, do it because it is the polite thing to do for anyone, not because I have boobs.

I completely agree that if one were to hold the door open to one person, one should hold it open for any person, no matter if they're a woman or a man.

However, unless I explicitly tell the person I'm holding a door open for, that I'm only doing it because they're a woman/on crutches/in a wheelchair/pushing a pram, and wouldn't do it in other circumstances, any insult taken by that person is on them, not me. They can't know my reasoning behind why I'm holding the door open for them, and if they decide to take offense to it, I can't help that. But it wouldn't be my fault that they're taking offense. And it won't stop me from holding the door open to other people in the future.
Also, unless the person taking offense to me holding the door open for them doesn't tell me they're taking offense to me holding the door open for them, I won't know that they've taken offense to it, mainly because I'm not a psychic and I can't read minds*.

Going back to the original point, if I were to ask someone out to dinner, I'd expect to pay for the meal, and unless it had been discussed beforehand that the other person would want to pay their share, I'd go to settle the bill without asking them about it. It wouldn't mean i don't think they couldn't pay for their share, but rather that since I asked them out, it would be my treat, same as if I'd invite someone to dinner at my house, I'd not expect them to pay for groceries purchased for making the meal.
However, if they said they'd want to pay for their share, I wouldn't be insulted or read anything into it more than that they wanted to pay their share, and I'd let them do so.

*Ok, so in some cases you'll know, cause the person taking offense will act offended and make it clear, but a lot of people don't

Pendulous

2014-02-11, 04:40 AM

Depends heavily on the situation.

If you know the person beforehand, you know their financial situation, and would be more inclined to offer to pay if you know they're a little shorthanded or whatnot. If it's a more blind date, there's nothing wrong with discussing it.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-11, 06:06 AM

Rather than complaining at women who are sceptical of your intentions, why not complain at the men who make them sceptical in the first place - it'll make it seem like you do actually care about the injustices.

As a though in regards to you hyperbole:
"I'm not sexist or a rapist or a stalker but any woman will feel entitled to treat me as such until I've provided proof that I'm not" - one in four women have been raped, most women are attacked by people know to them in some capacity.
Getting to know a man is a dangerous proposition for a woman. When there is not such a high risk that you're likely to be a threat (remember, you're more likely to rape her if she knows you than doesn't!), you'll stop getting treated like a threat.

And again, rather than protesting your innocence as "one of the good ones", this link may explain things (http://kedasederragar.tumblr.com/post/76137567826/miketooch-bigyachtsandmoney-sorry-its) better than I in regards to why it's not about you, but you still have to deal with it, and accept that people get angry at you for something you didn't do (see also: male privilege).

Your attitude is simply reinforcing what I said.
You think everything that anything a woman can do to a man is justified and that I should just be quiet and take it, while also implying I don't care for the victims of abuse at the hand of men just because I don't think that "an eye for an eye" is a valid philosophy. You are unable to see the implications in your reasoning: that an injustice justifies an injustice in return and so on, in an endless circle.
Sad thing is, I knew about what your answer was going to be even before you posted it. I'm not going to derail this thread, so we might as well drop this, I'm not going to answer to further posts about this anyway.
It's fruitless to argue, I bother to post in the first place just because I'm not the passive kind, but it's been a long time now since I've lost hope about the vocal minority of this forum.

Serpentine

2014-02-11, 06:19 AM

Well, you see, most men are attracted to women, that's why they are expecially kind to them. Is this insulting? Should a man conciously avoid any act of kindness in your presence just out of fear that you will condemn him for it?
There is also the fact that some people really do keep the door open out of simple politeness for everyone, but from what you are saying it seems that it would bother you just out of fear that it might be intended as an act of chivalry instead of politeness.
So what do you do when this happens? Ask the man why is he doing it? I would personally find it somehwere between awkward and rude if I had to justify my every action to my date.
Finally, there's the implication that a man would never do any of these actions (pay for a meal, hold a door open, etc...) spontaneously and gladly and that asking him not to do it is somehow never going to make him feel uncomfortable.

I wonder, why aren't we entitled to presumption of innocence? Why is it ok to judge our behaviour based not on what we are but on what we might be presumed to be? I personally find it incredibly offensive. I'm not sexist or a rapist or a stalker but any woman will feel entitled to treat me as such until I've provided proof that I'm not.
How would you feel if I condemned you because you put on skimpy clothes on our date out of presumption that you are a prostitute? How would you feel if I basically asked you not to do it until I made sure you aren't one? That would be horrible, wouldn't it?

It blows my mind to see how these huge double standards are held as an example of fighting sexism. Sure. Keep on treating men as presumed guilty until proven innocent. That's the right way to do things.
Yeeeeaaaaaah nope. You're the only one making presumptions here.
No where have I said that I would assume that someone holding a door open for me is doing it because I'm a woman.
No where have I said that I would accost someone if they held a door open for me and demand answers on their motivations.
No where have I said that the solution is for men to start slamming doors in women's faces or to start being rude to them.
No where have I applied any double standards.

What I have said, is that if, say, someone comes onto an internet forum and says "I hold doors open for women", I will call them out on their sexism.
What I might have said is that only holding doors for the section of the population you want to bone isn't "chivalrous", it's just objectifying that section and being rude to the rest.
What I didn't bother to say was that unless I actually saw evidence that they were only holding doors open for women, I would not assume that is why they did it. I would consider an open declaration that "I hold doors open for women" to be sufficient evidence.
What I have said is that if you are going to extend that courtesy to part of the population, good manners dictates that you direct it to the rest. My suggestion would be to base one's decision on whether to hold a door open on the person's proximity, speed, ability, the convenience, the practicality, and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with their sex.
What I have said is that if you do something for someone based solely on their sex, that is a sexist act. This is a fact, as I said, no matter how you try to spin it.

Regarding your last two paragraphs, I strongly recommend not trying to open that can of worms here. If you really want genuine answers to your questions, they have been asked many, many times on the Internet, and answered just as many times by people far more articulate than me. And there are plenty of valid and very important answers to those questions.

But no, I have no double standards here. You know what is a double standard, though?
> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted -> unreasonable.
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated -> reasonable.
Personally, I have no strong opinions on whether or not either of these are reasonable. I think both have unfortunate but understandable reasons underpinning them, and both have a factor of irrationality that those people would benefit by dealing with. But whatever applies to one applies exactly as much to the other.

Zorg

2014-02-11, 06:30 AM

vocal minority

[citation needed]

I, on the other hand, can provide plenty of statistics stating that one of the greatest risks of injury or death to women is men. If you feel that women shouldn't be wary of men as it is unjust and an eye for an eye in comparison to that, then your priorities are seriously skewed.

If you'd actually read what I'd said you'd see my point is not, somehow, crushing men under the stiletto of womanhood but rather to:

1) suggest direct your ire to the men who make you look bad, not the women who cannot be sure if you are a creep or not as a whole lot of dudes be creepy (example: guy who posed as a woman on a dating site and quit after two hours due to the torrent of harassment).
That's because the problem dudes are the sort who'll just dismiss anything a woman says out of hand.

2) explain in more detail why such wariness is warranted, specifically answering your being cast in a negative light by people you've just met.

3) provided further explanation on my position that I'm assuming you haven't read, but explains how you, being a member of a group in power cannot blame those victimised by said power for being wary of people with said power.
Also covers the negative reaction to people who are confronted with "innocently" being treated as problematic and how to deal with it.

I'm not sure, since you did not go into anything but vague details and accusations against points I didn't make, what these great injustices I'm advocating are. However I doubt I'll find out since you took the classic silencing tactic of "misrepresent the other person's point then refuse to argue this imaginary argument further".
Example: "anything a woman can do to a man is justified and that I should just be quiet and take it" (anyone is welcome to quote where I endorsed that attitude).

So yeah, rather than getting angry at women being annoyed/angry at you doing something nice, get angry at the guys who make those women angry and annoyed for tainting the idea in the first place.

SiuiS

2014-02-11, 06:56 AM

I'm curious about women trying to settle debts on dates. The idea of a date is that we will like each other more afterward; the tracking of debts at so early a stage in that relationship is odd.

There's a British chap in YouTube who goes on about this. It's quite entertaining, I'll try to find it for you.

*

Kalmageddon, I want to point out that after this post

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

And the ensuing discussion about how weird it is that women are worried that men would try to cash in on their courtesy like it's some form of karmic debit, you actually start with how weird it is women don't like it and they should just accept that you're being nice because you want something from them (find them attractive > working on prospective wooing > trying to get something ie romance out of your actions).

This is 100% the exact same stuff we are talking about. You are trying to create social pressure to just accept that you're being nice for ulterior motives.

crushing men under the stiletto of womanhood

Ooh, nice use of language. Evocative.

Finlam

2014-02-11, 07:40 AM

This seems a lot of debate about nothing.

If you don't like them paying for dinner on the first date, then just let them but tell them you'll pick it up on the second date. Problem solved? Gender inequality and rampant male chauvinism avoided?

Honestly, if you start arguing about who's picking up the check on a first date, you probably don't have many more dates (with that person?) in your future.

Hyena

2014-02-11, 08:18 AM

Yeeeeaaahnope. If one is inappropriate, the other is too. Particularly as my impression was that the "going behind his back" (which I do think is not good) is her response to him feeling emasculated by and therefore unwilling to accept her partial or full payment, not the source of his feeling of "unmanliness". That is, whether she did it openly or behind his back, he would still consider it to be a threat to his masculinity, and therefore in my opinion effectively as legitimate to criticise as being insulted by that same act when done by a man to a woman.

The situation must be clarified further.
We usually split the check or I accept the full pay due to a number of reasons*, but sometimes she pays behind my back like in a situation I described.
Normally, it wouldn't concern me very much - after all, I am a greedy man, but quite a while ago she raised an issue about me acting unmanly - like letting her pay. I don't really understand how and why that talk changed how I act, but it did.
Now, the real question is why she pays for both if she hates to do it, but it's a question that I won't get a straight answer to.

* 1) Every time I cook, the result is a strange and visually disgusting tasteless mess, so she does the cooking. Naturally, when it concerns food, I should repay at least in some way.
2) For a long time she worked at low-paying job and had to spend a lot of money to stay afloat, while I got money for nothing from the goverment, because my parents are deeeead.
3) Everyone else in the country does it, she expects me to do it and she loathes ideas of feminism.

Serpentine

2014-02-11, 08:21 AM

There are so many extra little issues in that just waiting to sproing into more drama that I'm not going to touch them, but okay, that's a different situation more or less.

Asheram

2014-02-11, 08:42 AM

To go back to the original point of the discussion, if I may prove my input.

I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to these things so when put into a formal setting such as dates or parties, If you invite another party over then the inviting party with provide food and snacks unless discusses earlier.

If I go to another party then I assume, if it will last during an extended period of time, that food and snacks will be provided there.

A date on a remote location is practically the same, if one party invites the other out on a date, then the inviting party is assumed to provide for the food unless otherwise clarified or discussed earlier.

This in mind I will say that it's little harm in saying that you are uncomfortable with not splitting the bill as long as you proclaim it before ordering the meal. If it is later or during payment then it will be embarrassing to the one who assumed that he/she will pay. (Just make sure to put it in a way mindful of the pride of the one who invited out.)

This is how I view dates and invites, experiences may vary.

rs2excelsior

2014-02-11, 08:47 AM

And the ensuing discussion about how weird it is that women are worried that men would try to cash in on their courtesy like it's some form of karmic debit, you actually start with how weird it is women don't like it and they should just accept that you're being nice because you want something from them (find them attractive > working on prospective wooing > trying to get something ie romance out of your actions).

What I might have said is that only holding doors for the section of the population you want to bone isn't "chivalrous", it's just objectifying that section and being rude to the rest.

This... is not the point at all. At least for me.

Even if I never see nor expect to see a woman again, I'll hold a door open for her. Because it is the chivalrous thing to do. Of course, 99 times out of 100, if she were a man, I'll do the same thing.

Asheram

2014-02-11, 08:56 AM

Even if I never see nor expect to see a woman again, I'll hold a door open for her. Because it is the chivalrous thing to do. Of course, 99 times out of 100, if she were a man, I'll do the same thing.

It's just plain rude to close the door behind you when there are others behind you, no matter the gender of the ones following.

SiuiS

2014-02-11, 09:02 AM

The situation must be clarified further.
We usually split the check or I accept the full pay due to a number of reasons*, but sometimes she pays behind my back like in a situation I described.
Normally, it wouldn't concern me very much - after all, I am a greedy man, but quite a while ago she raised an issue about me acting unmanly - like letting her pay. I don't really understand how and why that talk changed how I act, but it did.
Now, the real question is why she pays for both if she hates to do it, but it's a question that I won't get a straight answer to.

* 1) Every time I cook, the result is a strange and visually disgusting tasteless mess, so she does the cooking. Naturally, when it concerns food, I should repay at least in some way.
2) For a long time she worked at low-paying job and had to spend a lot of money to stay afloat, while I got money for nothing from the goverment, because my parents are deeeead.
3) Everyone else in the country does it, she expects me to do it and she loathes ideas of feminism.

Wait, so she makes fun of you for letting her pay but won't let you pay, going. So far as to be subversive and hide her paying from you?

Run.

This... is not the point at all. At least for me.

Of the OP? No. Of the general topic? No.
Of the side topic about why exactly women can be wary of 'chivalry'? It is quite the point.

Serpentine

2014-02-11, 09:05 AM

This... is not the point at all. At least for me.That was specifically in response to what K said.

Even if I never see nor expect to see a woman again, I'll hold a door open for her. Because it is the chivalrous thing to do. Of course, 99 times out of 100, if she were a man, I'll do the same thing.So you open doors for people. Why say "I open doors for women", if what you really do is open doors for people? I hope I don't have to repeat this, since I've said it about 3 times already, but it is not holding open doors I have a problem with; it's good manners. It's specifically "I hold doors specifically for women", and the constant combination with "chivalry" rubs me the wrong way as well, and reinforces the "I hold doors for women because they're women".

shadow_archmagi

2014-02-11, 01:59 PM

Personally, what I suggest doing is waiting until near the end of the meal, and then when the check arrives, scream and leap out the window, then take off running down the street.

That way your life stays exciting, nobody accuses you of violating/supporting gender norms, and you gradually drive up the price of glass.

Asta Kask

2014-02-11, 02:02 PM

Coidzor

2014-02-11, 02:18 PM

Two people are engaging in a social activity. One fulfills the commonly known social contract. The other breaks it and blames the first person for any bad blood.

That's a trap, Coidzor.

1. The woman disingenuously bringing up going dutch as a test is not a commonly known social contract.

2. In the actual scenario, the guy does not actually know that he's being tested, he only knows that she's not interested in continuing things.

3. Going dutch when a woman wants to go dutch is not violating the social contract except for those regressive elements of society that don't want women to be dating in the first place.

4. You're being as bad as those who actually play "got'cha" like this by acting like respecting a woman's expressed wishes is disrespecting her.

5. What mental gymnastics did you have to go through in order to try to turn that around on me?

Because you aren't talking about the same thing at that point. You stated that doing a bad thing is bad. You also said that doing this other thing is bad. I agree bad things are bad; I do not agree other thing is a bad thing. Not inherently.

I was, in fact, talking about the same damn thing and did not change subjects. However, please, enlighten me as to what you thought I was talking about and what you thought I changed the subject to. Please actually *state* this rather than try to duck it and obfuscate your words and meaning.

You're shaving five hundred years of nuance off of ritualized human interaction and judging that product without any of the context.

First you bring up Japan for no reason, now you're pulling this out of your ass? From your continued insistence on presenting any man who falls for the bluff as a bad person, I would have to say that it is you who is judging things from a perspective divorced from the actual context.

shadow_archmagi

2014-02-11, 02:46 PM

More seriously, I don't really feel like there's a wrong thing to do in dating, for the most part.

If I went out with someone, and they got really upset about who paid for the food and said they never wanted to see me again, that'd probably be for the best. I'm not really at a place in my life right now where prolonged interactions with super neurotic people are something I need or want.

I always make sure to offer to pay for their meal, because I enjoy the connotations of generosity, and I've been socialized to feel like that's the more normal option, but I'm not particularly upset if they want to pay for themselves.

EDIT: Somebody above said that one doesn't normally randomly treat their friends.

I'm pretty sure there's a well-established trope of treating one's friends- I can't name specifics, but I'm sure I've heard and seen plenty of sentences like "C'mon back, Hank, I'll buy ya a beer and you can tell me all about it" or "Hey, let me know if you're ever in town again and I'll buy ya lunch."

Eldariel

2014-02-11, 02:55 PM

Rather than complaining at women who are sceptical of your intentions, why not complain at the men who make them sceptical in the first place - it'll make it seem like you do actually care about the injustices.

What degree of perfection are we looking for here? It's impossible to make sure there are no bad apples in any given group, especially ones that constitute like 3 billion people (and the reasons for crime, well, I'm sure people here have studied social sciences enough that I don't need to go there, but suffice to say it's usually not just the person randomly deciding to flip out).

If every group is judged by their worst examples, why, we're left with nothing but terrible groups - well, outside niche groups that won't be recognized by any meaningful number of people, and of course the people we actually know. The problem here, however, doesn't seem to be about interacting with people we know but with the ones we don't.

As such, well, the view point we're talking about here means that to be fair we should consider every person we meet to be a potential rapist, mugger, robber, murderer, etc. While certainly one way to live, I don't want to live in a world where we assume every person we don't know wants to use us for something.

Besides, you're asking me to take responsibility for somebody else's actions. I can't, nor do I will to do that. My actions are mine to carry, theirs are theirs. I will do what I can to improve it but ultimately? There's no basis to judge me by those actions, nor any other individual person who hasn't specifically partaken them. And yes, I understand that doesn't actually help at all.

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-11, 03:10 PM

"I'm not sexist or a rapist or a stalker but any woman will feel entitled to treat me as such until I've provided proof that I'm not" - one in four women have been raped, most women are attacked by people know to them in some capacity.
Getting to know a man is a dangerous proposition for a woman. When there is not such a high risk that you're likely to be a threat (remember, you're more likely to rape her if she knows you than doesn't!), you'll stop getting treated like a threat.

Statistically, about all men have been physically assaulted by other men and close to 50% have been physically assaulted by women. Why do similar trust issues not exist between men, or between all humans?

Seriously. Why not? Any argument by rape relies on the thought that "rape is a special kind of evil". It completely disregards all other forms of violence, and men are overwhelmingly more subject to violence overall than women.

warty goblin

2014-02-11, 03:36 PM

[citation needed]

I, on the other hand, can provide plenty of statistics stating that one of the greatest risks of injury or death to women is men. If you feel that women shouldn't be wary of men as it is unjust and an eye for an eye in comparison to that, then your priorities are seriously skewed.

I'm not going to disagree with you - because I don't disagree with you - but I do want to comment on your post. This is from my background as an obviously male person, and is not intended as anything more universal than a statement of my personal experience.

Having people - women or men, but in practice mostly women - be physically afraid of me simply by dint of who I am physically is not fun. I do not like people being afraid of me, I want people to like me and be comfortable in my presence.

I understand why - I'm large, socially awkward and undeniably male - and I don't even think it unreasonable that people are. I don't purposefully try to make anybody uncomfortable, quite the opposite in fact, nor am I angry with anybody for being so. I may be angry with myself if I said or did something that made anybody uncomfortable, and with the generally wretched state of affairs that gives people cause to fear me because I'm a large and somewhat rough 'round the edges guy.

I do however get only mildly cheesed off when told I can't express that I'm unhappy when people are afraid of me, mostly because I cannot understand what's possibly objectionable about the statement. I'm not expressing anger towards anybody, asking anybody to run any risk, or do anything other than acknowledge that I have my perspective on my own life. Surely a person should be granted at least that, right?

Killer Angel

2014-02-11, 03:48 PM

So yeah, rather than getting angry at women being annoyed/angry at you doing something nice, get angry at the guys who make those women angry and annoyed for tainting the idea in the first place.

I suppose I'm angry at the guys, AND disappointed with the girls that puts me in the same boat of those guys, with the reasoning "just to be sure".

blunk

2014-02-11, 04:16 PM

Someone who tries to pay for your date is usually still a good person, and a good person (with decent social skills) will honor your preference gracefully. So you can convey your preference without making a big deal out of it, and go from there. Usually, it'll be something like:

date: [grabs check]
you: [makes motions to see check as well]
date: "Oh, I'll get it."
you: "Oh no, I'll split it with you."
date: "You sure?"
you: "Definitely."
date: "Oh, okay!"

... and that's it. Your date may try again on the second date, and if you say, "no, I just prefer to split things", your date will likely split with you from then on.

If anything *doesn't* go according to this, well, that's a warning sign.

blunk

2014-02-11, 04:28 PM

I see now that you didn't ask for advice, just if anyone felt the same way.

I can't speak to that, exactly, as nobody tries to pay for my dates. But I can say that it's hard to know if a given person expects me to pay or not. So I err on the side of being generous - which isn't a statement that my date *needs* my generosity, but simply that I am a generous person and wish to share it.

If that turns out to be the wrong decision, I pivot to the right decision, again without making a big deal of it. And that's because I am generous *and* accommodating. :smallwink:

Edit to add:

I try to be up front about it, but I usually get strange looks.Well, then you're dating... not the wrong guys full stop, but the wrong guys in this particular aspect. And that particular incompatibility might be a sign of deeper incompatibilities. (Or might not.)

Rosstin

2014-02-11, 04:40 PM

Speaking as a man to other men, my MO is just to respect peoples' wishes on going dutch/not and not to make a big deal of it.

If you offer to pay and they let you, that's okay.
If you offer to pay and they insist on paying, that's okay.
If you offer to pay and they are offended, that's okay.

Just take it in stride and don't get in a tiff about it. You don't have to get super confused about your date's motives. Different people have different perceptions on these matters and you just have to accept them.

Some women like it when they are treated in a "chivalrous" fashion.
Some women are offended if you try to be chivalrous.
Some women don't care either way.

It's your job as a fellow human to figure out how this particular human likes being treated, and just work with it just like any other personality trait someone might have. You can't expect all women to form a party line on going dutch, just like you can't expect all humans to vote for the same guy or all like being punched in the arm when they say something hilarious.

I understand why men feel confused about this; I too have had experiences where someone I'm going out with is very offended when I hold open a door for them. The best you can do is just make a mental note of how that person likes to be treated, and modify your behavior. It helps if you don't think of it as a "gender" issue and just accept it as part of a general milieu of preferences that make up a person.

Most people tend to be touchy and on-guard when going on a first date. I think most of us are watching the other person closely and over-interpreting their moves, trying to figure out what their actions "mean" and what they "say" about their personality.

blunk

2014-02-11, 04:46 PM

I too have had experiences where someone I'm going out with is very offended when I hold open a door for them. The best you can do is just make a mental note of how that person likes to be treated, and modify your behavior.Agreed. But in that case, I would make a further mental note, "I may not want to spend much more time around this person."

All part of the familiarizing process.

Coidzor

2014-02-11, 04:53 PM

If you offer to pay and they are offended, that's okay.

Just take it in stride and don't get in a tiff about it.

Might just be too late for that if they're offended for offering to pay in the first place though.

Rosstin

2014-02-11, 05:01 PM

I usually find that apologizing and moving on does the trick.

Rosstin

2014-02-11, 05:29 PM

Regarding the OP: I think your feelings are normal, I know many people who feel the same way. Understand that many will offer to pay and just be upfront about wanting to pay your own share. If people are super-insistent about paying for you, explain why you feel that way. If they don't respect your wishes, they're probably a) a jerk b) coming from a different cultural context

Having spent some time in China, fighting over the bill at a restaurant is a sort of game and as a foreigner I learned I just had to accept people paying for me at times to avoid offending them.

SiuiS

2014-02-11, 08:03 PM

1. The woman disingenuously bringing up going dutch as a test is not a commonly known social contract.

2. In the actual scenario, the guy does not actually know that he's being tested, he only knows that she's not interested in continuing things.

3. Going dutch when a woman wants to go dutch is not violating the social contract except for those regressive elements of society that don't want women to be dating in the first place.

4. You're being as bad as those who actually play "got'cha" like this by acting like respecting a woman's expressed wishes is disrespecting her.

5. What mental gymnastics did you have to go through in order to try to turn that around on me?

5. No gymnastics involved in pointing out that you cannot reduce such a complex thing to "X is at fault the end".
4. There is acknowledgement, not expectation.
2. That's the tragedy, yes.
1. If it wasn't, why is it a trope?
3. Going Dutch when a woman doesn't want to go Dutch but is expected to tell you she does is what, though?

I was, in fact, talking about the same damn thing and did not change subjects.

Calm down, think clearly. For someone who uses technical language all the time I'm surprised you're so mad I pointed out your technical language.

No, you did not talk about the same thing. "Situation with clear lines of expectation" and "situation with unclear lines of expectation, third degree social conditioning on part of both parties at odds creating rough decision between trying and maybe failing to come to mutual beneficial conclusion and trying and maybe failing to stay true to your roots and yourself" are different.

If you have a woman lie and then get mad at you for believing her, that's bad. Yes.
If you have a woman tell you what she thinks she's supposed to, and you do what you think you're supposed to, and everyone is unhappy because of emotional baggage they don't always understand and don't always see as subjective over objective, that's a tragedy and both people are victims.

However, please, enlighten me as to what you thought I was talking about and what you thought I changed the subject to. Please actually *state* this rather than try to duck it and obfuscate your words and meaning.

I expect you to be able to read your own wiring, coidzor, I don't want to has to quote you at yourself every time. That gets tedious.

First you bring up Japan for no reason,

A parallel example of ingrained and seemingly backwards social expectations to help enlighten you about seemingly backward social expectations? The shock! Forgive me for expecting you to be able to draw parallels between similar things.

If you can show me using proof anywhere I said a man who falls for a bluff is a bad person, I'll accept that. In the meantime, it's rather audacious of you to get mad at me for 'mental gymnastics' when you yourself are working up a froth over a strawman interpretation you made up.

Some equations don't reduce to answers, they reduce to smaller equations. Human interaction is nuanced. If you honestly expect every social engagement to be clear cut and binary, you're going to have a very unhappy life. Especially if any mention of nuance or avoiding blame without more information upsets you so.

[QUOTE=blunk;16975847]
If anything *doesn't* go according to this, well, that's a warning sign.

Truth.

I usually find that apologizing and moving on does the trick.

It's that moving on part that's hard for folks, though. It's why we get mad at people who don't appear properly sad when they're in trouble; humans like to watch others squirm. It's satisfying to know they are suffering for their wrongs.

Alad

2014-02-11, 08:45 PM

Statistically, about all men have been physically assaulted by other men and close to 50% have been physically assaulted by women. Why do similar trust issues not exist between men, or between all humans?

Seriously. Why not? Any argument by rape relies on the thought that "rape is a special kind of evil". It completely disregards all other forms of violence, and men are overwhelmingly more subject to violence overall than women.

I'm... gona pick out the dangerous topic here. (and for the record I have been physically assaulted.) I'm gona suggest that yes. rape is over and above "normal" assault. not that I don't tend to mistrust strangers and anyone who seems to be following me or observing me intently. Normal assault does create trust issues for those who have dealt with it, for me rape is something far worse than that. I can try to explain it if you really wish but yeah. not the same.
(this is not going into the idea that physical confrontation is normalized for guys, my mum once kicked me out onto the street where 3 other kids wanted to beat the crap out of me because I shouldn't run from battles.)

Aedilred

2014-02-11, 09:08 PM

5. No gymnastics involved in pointing out that you cannot reduce such a complex thing to "X is at fault the end".
4. There is acknowledgement, not expectation.
2. That's the tragedy, yes.
1. If it wasn't, why is it a trope?
3. Going Dutch when a woman doesn't want to go Dutch but is expected to tell you she does is what, though?

Just because something is a trope doesn't mean it's reality; it doesn't mean it's anything other than stereotype, and it certainly doesn't make it something to be defended on that basis, surely. Moreover, given that one party in this hypothetical instance is being deliberately obfuscatory and (ymmv) deceptive, that rather precludes its being a contract, or at least a contract that anyone in their right mind should ever agree to.

I'm not saying it's necessarily unacceptable behaviour (context, tone, body language, precise vocabulary, etc. play a part). But what I'm struggling to understand is how it's apparently ok for one party to play coy with the issue, expect the other party to read their mind, up to the point of being offended if they get it wrong, and it's apparently not ok for the other party to be annoyed that they're doing this. It's a massive double standard, and to try to justify it on the basis of any sort of equality frankly does require mental gymnastics.

Mind, it is at times like this that I regret that "the rules" that - supposedly, in bygone days of yore - used to govern polite interactions have broken down. In some societies there is an accepted code that people will insist on not being paid for, whatever, everyone understands that and it can be coped with; it is indeed some form of social contract. Maybe it used to work that way here once. But, especially in light of the OP, it just doesn't work that way any more. You no longer know whether when someone protests that they want to contribute/pay whether they actually mean it and really don't want you to pay for them, or whether they're just being polite, and the only way to discover which they genuinely mean is to risk testing the conversation to destruction. It's symptomatic of wider issues: these days everybody just plays by their own rules and if you don't know what they are, you're screwed.

blunk

2014-02-11, 09:50 PM

Yes [it's insulting for men to be especially kind to women because they're attracted to them]. Because that's the same thing as being nice to someone because they're black (racist) red headed (also racist?) or speak with an accent (no idea) or are short. It's an interest in a trait, not a person. It's objectifying in the literal sense of valuing someone as though they were an object with a trait. In this case, the trait is breasts.

Most women would like to be flattered for their personal traits which they've accumulated through a lifetime of growth and change, not because of a legacy object nailed onto them by genetics. So 'I'm being nice because you're female' maybe isn't always insulting, but it's damn sure never flattering, and very often both patronizing and self-serving.You know, "insulting" e.g. can mean at least two things:

1. the object took insult;
2. the subject intended insult.

It seems like you're arguing the first point, that some women would take insult by being treated differently (better) because a man found them attractive, and that is certainly true. And it seems like Kalmageddon is arguing against the second, that treating a woman better due to attraction is always intended as an insult, and I think he is correct there, too. So it has to come down to the individual interaction, don't you think?

In my estimation, most of the women I've known would not feel insulted by a certain amount of preferential treatment based on a man's attraction to them. They would, however, feel vastly insulted if it were the *only* reason they got preferential treatment, or if the man prioritized it over their personal traits. So I agree that "most women would like to be flattered for their personal traits" first and foremost, but I don't see that flattering for attraction has to diminish that. You just have to be careful that everyone involved is being honest and forthcoming about their motivations.

A lot depends on your baseline level of treatment, too. If you treat everyone well, you have a little more license to treat someone you're attracted to extra-well. If you treat everyone poorly except for those you're attracted to, then you're an enormous jerk.

Is it self-serving? Absolutely. But isn't everything? It just happens that this type of self-serving also results in better treatment for others - without diminishing the treatment of other others - and I think of that as the best kind of self-serving.

So I'm out on a limb here. Let's see if it breaks. :smallsmile:

Trog

2014-02-11, 10:09 PM

SiuiS

2014-02-11, 10:46 PM

Just because something is a trope doesn't mean it's reality; it doesn't mean it's anything other than stereotype,

It being a thing which happens in reality makes it a reality, surely?

and it certainly doesn't make it something to be defended on that basis, surely.

There's a difference between defending and acknowledging. If the only choices on the table are "she's a bitch, **** her" and "she's has bad social expectations" I'm going to aim for number two, because I can prove within reasonable doubt that the social expectation exists.

If extending basic courtesy to someone and not damning them without further evidence is mental gymnastics, I must be a contortionist I suppose. M

Moreover, given that one party in this hypothetical instance is being deliberately obfuscatory and (ymmv) deceptive, that rather precludes its being a contract, or at least a contract that anyone in their right mind should ever agree to.

I reference, again, another culture where "deliberately deceptive and obfuscatory" is the normal polite thing to do, and is certainly not a contract which no one in their right mind would subscribe to.

We have people who are famished turning down food because they know you're never supposed to accept an offer of food when you impose.
We have people who believe accepting a gift without refusing first selfish and low, and a mark against your quality as a civilized and moral human being.
Why is having people who pay proper lip service like they are supposed to but don't mean it (a trait which defines a lot of things!) a mark against the person and not the expectation?

I'm perfectly fine with "saying you want to go Dutch but secretly wanting the other party to pay is bad", I am not okay with "people who say they want to go Dutch but secretly want the other party to pay are bad people, always".

I'm not saying it's necessarily unacceptable behaviour (context, tone, body language, precise vocabulary, etc. play a part). But what I'm struggling to understand is how it's apparently ok for one party to play coy with the issue, expect the other party to read their mind, up to the point of being offended if they get it wrong, and it's apparently not ok for the other party to be annoyed that they're doing this. It's a massive double standard, and to try to justify it on the basis of any sort of equality frankly does require mental gymnastics.

You're trying to reduce a problem farther than is possible.

At no point does "I understand why you do this" equal "what you do is okay". It is a nuanced thing, as I have said since the very beginning. The only wrong answer is the overly simple one. A person can be a perpetrator and a victim. A person can be okay and do bad things. A thing which is bad can be situationally good. A thing which is understandable and forgive able can still be unforgivable. Human beings are complex, and you do no favors by squishing actors, actions, scenes, stages, buildup and setup all into one or two words and passig judgement on the lot.

It's like describing the dark ages as "it sucked" and getting mad when someone points out there's more to it that that.

You know, "insulting" e.g. can mean at least two things:

1. the object took insult;
2. the subject intended insult.

It seems like you're arguing the first point, that some women would take insult by being treated differently (better) because a man found them attractive, and that is certainly true. And it seems like Kalmageddon is arguing against the second, that treating a woman better due to attraction is always intended as an insult, and I think he is correct there, too. So it has to come down to the individual interaction, don't you think?

I think any situation which involves you judging a person not by their own self but by a group you associate with will always reflect on you. If you always treat military personnel a certain way, always treat gangsters a certain way, or always treat women a certain way, it will reflect on you. It's a personal trait you yourself possess, and you will be judged by it.

I also think, separately, that it is a nuanced issue. Once again, being understandable doesn't make it okay. It makes it understandable. "I held the door open for a girl because I find girls attractive" is saying you won't hold the door for unattractive girls. It puts them on the defensive. It erodes self confidence in general. It reduces a person to a trait.

A lot depends on your baseline level of treatment, too. If you treat everyone well, you have a little more license to treat someone you're attracted to extra-well. If you treat everyone poorly except for those you're attracted to, then you're an enormous jerk.

This is true.

*A troglodyte dressed in tennis clothes wanders in with a folding chair under one arm*

Oh wow you are in tennis clothes. That's fantastic!

blunk

2014-02-11, 11:04 PM

I think any situation which involves you judging a person not by their own self but by a group you associate with will always reflect on you. If you always treat military personnel a certain way, always treat gangsters a certain way, or always treat women a certain way, it will reflect on you. It's a personal trait you yourself possess, and you will be judged by it.Oh, I agree. I'm all for treating people as individuals.

I also think, separately, that it is a nuanced issue. Once again, being understandable doesn't make it okay. It makes it understandable. "I held the door open for a girl because I find girls attractive" is saying you won't hold the door for unattractive girls. It puts them on the defensive. It erodes self confidence in general. It reduces a person to a trait.I don't remember who expressed skepticism at this upthread, but I genuinely do hold the door open for everyone, so much so that I sometimes smile foolishly at being stuck letting ten people through. And yet I have, on rare occasions, held the door extra-long for someone I found attractive... but I don't believe I've ever done it in such a way that would make anyone else uncomfortable. I'm concerned about such things.

Holding the door is maybe a bad example, because it's not a zero-sum game. If we really wanted to get to the meat of this, we'd have to find something that *is* a zero-sum game.

Grinner

2014-02-11, 11:18 PM

I also think, separately, that it is a nuanced issue. Once again, being understandable doesn't make it okay. It makes it understandable. "I held the door open for a girl because I find girls attractive" is saying you won't hold the door for unattractive girls. It puts them on the defensive. It erodes self confidence in general. It reduces a person to a trait.

At the risk of biting off more than I'm prepared to chew presently, I have something to say in this regard.

You're heaping a lot of expectation on others. You're asking that people moderate their own behavior in the extreme so to spare someone the possibility of bruised feelings. It seems to me that you're asking people to stop being nice to people they like, because nothing says "I like you" like standoffishly ignoring them.

On the other hand, you could also be asking that everyone treat everyone else in kind. I've thought in the past that everyone woman should give every man a fair chance. Course, that doesn't happen, now does it?

That's what makes this whole egalitarianism thing so difficult. It's easy to ask others to change their ways to better suit you. It's much harder to do the same for them.

Kelb_Panthera

2014-02-11, 11:41 PM

Whenever I go out to dinner date in a restaurant I feel some what insulted if my date pays for the meal. I prefer to split the meal every time. As for why I feel like this? I don't know, perhaps I think it feels like, it's almost like my date is telling me I can't support myself if I can't pay for my meal. Although there are exceptions; like birthdays or special events like promotion or awards where I can accept a meal being paid for.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

On the flipside of that coin, however, there are many men who would feel just as insulted by your refusing to allow them to pay for the whole thing.

Paying for meals, opening doors, and certain other behaviors are part of the classic "wooing a lady" paradigm. It's not intended as an insult; to say you can't take care of your own needs; but more to say, "you're a person who, in my estimation, deserves to be treated to nice things." Refusing is tantamount to responding with, "I don't care what you think and I don't want to owe you anything."

Neither position is really "wrong" per se. It's just something to consider.

SiuiS

2014-02-12, 12:49 AM

I don't remember who expressed skepticism at this upthread, but I genuinely do hold the door open for everyone, so much so that I sometimes smile foolishly at being stuck letting ten people through. And yet I have, on rare occasions, held the door extra-long for someone I found attractive... but I don't believe I've ever done it in such a way that would make anyone else uncomfortable. I'm concerned about such things.

Holding the door is maybe a bad example, because it's not a zero-sum game. If we really wanted to get to the meat of this, we'd have to find something that *is* a zero-sum game.

I do too, except the attractive part. I gauge door holding by how much hurry I'm in factored into their distance and speed from the door.

Sometimes I get these looks from people in supposed to be conventionally attracted to, that yet appreciate the door being open but also find it awkward that I'm doing it because surely the only reason is because they're pretty, though. That's always fun.

At the risk of biting off more than I'm prepared to chew presently, I have something to say in this regard.

You're heaping a lot of expectation on others. You're asking that people moderate their own behavior in the extreme so to spare someone the possibility of bruised feelings. It seems to me that you're asking people to stop being nice to people they like, because nothing says "I like you" like standoffishly ignoring them.

My expectation that is being heaped is if you're acting out of self interest don't get pissy when people judge you for acting out of self interest. It's the "I'm doing it for the gains involved, but you're supposed to think I'm being altruistic" I have issue with.

On the other hand, you could also be asking that everyone treat everyone else in kind. I've thought in the past that everyone woman should give every man a fair chance. Course, that doesn't happen, now does it?

Define fair. I think giving someone an opportunity while keeping in mind statistical facts is very fair.

Paying for meals, opening doors, and certain other behaviors are part of the classic "wooing a lady" paradigm.

Aye, and that is a distinction that comes and goes throughout these talks. 'On a date' the wooing has commenced, the paradigm is acknowledged and accepted. On the street, it is not. It is possible to start the paradigm by performing an act of wooing and it being taken well, but it's also possible it will be considered offensive, if only because an act of intimacy with a stranger is a violation of sorts.

When not consensually wooing, it is better to declare wooing and get consent than to begin wooing and then get defensive when the other party doesn't respond as you'd like.

blunk

2014-02-12, 01:09 AM

I do too, except the attractive part.When attractiveness plays into it for me, I am faintly aware that I'm being slightly non-egalitarian. But it pleases me and hurts nobody (as far as I can tell)... and my satisfaction counts toward the common good, too.

Dallas-Dakota

2014-02-12, 01:24 AM

Zorg

2014-02-12, 01:27 AM

What degree of perfection are we looking for here? It's impossible to make sure there are no bad apples in any given group, especially ones that constitute like 3 billion people.

Given the prevalence of harassment, abuse and violence perpetrated on women by men, I think it's more than a few bad apples.

While certainly one way to live, I don't want to live in a world where we assume every person we don't know wants to use us for something.

Neither do I, but you don't stop a problem simply by not being vocal about it, you stop what's causing it.

Besides, you're asking me to take responsibility for somebody else's actions. I can't, nor do I will to do that. My actions are mine to carry, theirs are theirs. I will do what I can to improve it but ultimately? There's no basis to judge me by those actions, nor any other individual person who hasn't specifically partaken them. And yes, I understand that doesn't actually help at all.

Ok, I'll judge you on the fact that I'm saying "I and many other women are wary of men we first meet because a man we are personally familiar with is much more likely to assault us than one we don't. Furthermore we are often targets of harassment and are treated "chivalrously" with the expectation that it will be repaid with sexual favours. Thus when you say you always pay for a meal, we get wary of your intentions and expectations"
Now the point here, that SiuiS summed up, is:

Kalmageddon, I want to point out that after this post

A lot of women are advised (by parents/other authority figures) not to let a guy buy for them on the first date, because of the fear that he will then try to use the "debt" as leverage to pressure them into things they may want to do.

And the ensuing discussion about how weird it is that women are worried that men would try to cash in on their courtesy like it's some form of karmic debit, you actually start with how weird it is women don't like it and they should just accept that you're being nice because you want something from them (find them attractive > working on prospective wooing > trying to get something ie romance out of your actions).

This is 100% the exact same stuff we are talking about. You are trying to create social pressure to just accept that you're being nice for ulterior motives.

See what I mean? People say they are nice to women because they find them attractive, and are wooing them in the hope of woohooing them, so often comes a societal expectation that if a woman is bought dinner she "owes" the man.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/9d696aba4fed498cf4859b854f2c1a72/tumblr_n0uj5mO7Ul1r83d7lo3_500.jpg

Yes, this is an actual ad someone made and published.

So, judging you personally on how you react to this point, I'd be wary of you since you are entirely dismissive of my, and others I know's reasons for practising caution. This dismissive attitude comes up in the next bit.

Why do similar trust issues not exist between men, or between all humans?

Seriously. Why not?

Because when a woman is sexually assaulted, she is blamed for it (See: Stubenville), that education and media only focuses on victims of random violent sexual assaults, while the majority of them are perpetrated by partners or people known to the victim.

Because this took me approximately two seconds to find on google:

http://i.imgur.com/jGqvHPT.jpg

So yeah.

It's all part of one big system - and saying "I'm nicer to women than I am to men because Chivalry" is oft the tip of an iceberg.

Statistically, about all men have been physically assaulted by other men and close to 50% have been physically assaulted by women.

Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%), from the US Dept of Justice. Now, those relate to what I was talking about - that does not mean that domestic/sexual violence against men is not an issue, nor a very serious one (I find the fact it is still used as a joke deplorable). It does mean however that when I'm speaking as to why women are wary of men, it's not relevant - it's a separate issue.
I mean I think cancer is awful, but it doesn't mean I think cholera is ok. It does mean that if I'm talking about treatment of cancer patients bringing in cholera epidemics serves no purpose.

I do however get only mildly cheesed off when told I can't express that I'm unhappy when people are afraid of me, mostly because I cannot understand what's possibly objectionable about the statement.

Nothing is - all I ask is that you don't say I have no reason to be wary of you.

blunk

2014-02-12, 01:35 AM

Wait, what?:confused:

''going Dutch'' means what? It means..

How the did that term get coined/where are it's origins, I'm very curious?:smallconfused:

I'm not sure if as a Dutch person this should offend me....Ha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch#Etymology

In the spirit of this thread, you can decide for yourself whether to be offended... :smallwink:

SiuiS

2014-02-12, 01:46 AM

When attractiveness plays into it for me, I am faintly aware that I'm being slightly non-egalitarian. But it pleases me and hurts nobody (as far as I can tell)... and my satisfaction counts toward the common good, too.

Just recognizing a difference, not casting judgement.

Wait, what?:confused:

''going Dutch'' means what? It means..

How the did that term get coined/where are it's origins, I'm very curious?:smallconfused:

I'm not sure if as a Dutch person this should offend me....

I first heard the term when I was eleven. At the time, I honestly wondered if Americans had passed this by the Dutch first, or if it was a Dutch practice, or what.

I'm going to guess "no". "No they did not".

blunk

2014-02-12, 02:28 AM

Just recognizing a difference, not casting judgement.Cool. *salutes*

Asta Kask

2014-02-12, 03:35 AM

I first heard the term when I was eleven. At the time, I honestly wondered if Americans had passed this by the Dutch first, or if it was a Dutch practice, or what.

I'm going to guess "no". "No they did not".

There were a number of wars between the English and the Dutch in the 17th century, so "dutch" is present in a number of derogatory terms - e.g., dutch courage (courage gained by drinking gin).

inexorabletruth

2014-02-12, 03:41 AM

Direct copy/paste from Wikipedia:

One suggestion is that the phrase "going Dutch" originates from the concept of a Dutch door. Previously on farmhouses this consisted of two equal parts (Sullivan 2010)...

This is the version I know and therefore is what I'm referring to when I use the phrase.

However in all fairness, some "dutch" phrases have more to do with derogatory references. Here is the link if you wish to continue your research on the meaning of the phrase or similar phrases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch)

Eldariel

2014-02-12, 06:04 AM

Given the prevalence of harassment, abuse and violence perpetrated on women by men, I think it's more than a few bad apples.

Neither do I, but you don't stop a problem simply by not being vocal about it, you stop what's causing it.

So focus on what's causing it. Men's behavior, just as "bad behavior" in general, is ultimately a byproduct of failed upbringing, which in turn is often fueled by billions of social factors (most common probably being bad parenting in all its guises/couples that don't actually get along and all that; poverty; social values; etc.).

Fix all world's social problems, you'll fix this problem along with billions of others for the next generations. Such an easy task, and the current generations are of course a lost cause already. Trying to yell at men to not rape/assault/abuse/murder/whatever isn't going to do anything since:
1) Massive majority of men would never even think of it so chances of a potential rapist actually hearing the yell are fairly slim.
2) The ones who do would do so regardless of whether I tell them "Don't rape" or not.

Ok, I'll judge you on the fact that I'm saying "I and many other women are wary of men we first meet because a man we are personally familiar with is much more likely to assault us than one we don't. Furthermore we are often targets of harassment and are treated "chivalrously" with the expectation that it will be repaid with sexual favours.

Okay. Has there ever been a study of how many people actually expect repayment when they do favors? Because far as I know, the whole point of favors is kinda that they're simple acts of courtesy that don't expect a compensation. If I were to offer to pay a meal, I'd do it 'cause I felt like it at the moment. I can't imagine anybody would expect it to be an elaborate ploy to have sex. Besides, it's not even possible to say with a straight face "you owe me sex"; that's just not how dates or sex work. Or relationships in general.

Like, how does that even work? The whole scenario is so perplexing to me: Does the woman agree to sex with a person they don't otherwise fancy because the man paid for the meal? Or does the man try to rape the woman because she accepted the payment and then didn't offer sex in return? What are we actually talking about here? Has that ever actually happened? The way it looks to me it seems like who pays for the dinner has absolutely nothing to do with anything afterwards. Except maybe next time the other party insists on paying the meal. Maybe not.

That said, I've offered to pay my friends, both male and female, plenty of dinners, beers and such over the years. Sometimes people pay something for me too. We've never kept a track, it's never been a problem. Overall, it's just like a small gift and in my experience, people love receiving gifts especially when spontaneous and unrequited. The fact that such a small gesture can make someone happy makes it easily worth it and I can't imagine why anybody would associate it with expectations for repayment or some such.

Zorg

2014-02-12, 06:19 AM

1) Massive majority of men would never even think of it so chances of a potential rapist actually hearing the yell are fairly slim

The majority of people who do it don't realise they've done it*.

Besides, it's not even possible to say with a straight face "you owe me sex"; that's just not how dates or sex work.

It is. It happens (http://members.lovingyou.com/showthread.php?threadid=256976).

Does the woman agree to sex with a person they don't otherwise fancy because the man paid for the meal? Or does the man try to rape the woman because she accepted the payment and then didn't offer sex in return? What are we actually talking about here? Has that ever actually happened?

Yes*, yes, rape, yes.

* because not all rape is violent - coercing someone is still rape, be it through intimidation or manipulation

Eldariel

2014-02-12, 06:45 AM

It is. It happens (http://members.lovingyou.com/showthread.php?threadid=256976).

That whole thread seems to be about people in a committed relationship tho which seems to me to be a whole other ballgame, since it is possible to have long-term expectations. Weren't we talking about paying on a date?

Finlam

2014-02-12, 06:54 AM

Weren't we talking about paying on a date?

Nope. Not on these boards. If the man does something a woman doesn't, then it's sexist ergo vis-a-vis rape.

FinnLassie

2014-02-12, 06:59 AM

Eldariel

2014-02-12, 07:09 AM

I have some friends who have come back from a date purely angered, because the person they were with thought that they were now entitled to go for the funky bits because they had been nice to them (paying the bill, being gentleman-y, etc).

Happens in and out of relationships. And telling your partner that you're entitled for sex because you've done housework or anything else is stupid and unacceptable. It has nothing to do with long-term expectations.

Of course it's unacceptable (far as I'm concerned, in a committed adult relationship both partners should be fulfilling each others' sexual needs unrequited; sex is not supposed to be a barter chip but a basic need in the massive majority of the adult population, male, female or third), my assumption here was that it's certainly not unfathomable for it to happen in a committed relationship; I was just wondering about it on a date because, well, there's no guarantee of a continuation or anything of the sort so where can one project those expectations in the first place? It just doesn't make sense to me. As such I merely pointed out that the linked thread wasn't about what I asked for.

Killer Angel

2014-02-12, 07:09 AM

The next time I'll think to pay for a meal / drink / whatever, I'll try to remember that I could be considered in the same way as a rapist.
Can I still offer a coffee to my male friends? :smallsigh:

inexorabletruth

2014-02-12, 07:12 AM

The next time I'll think to pay for a meal / drink / whatever, I'll try to remember that I could be considered in the same way as a rapist.
Can I still offer a coffee to my male friends? :smallsigh:

Not unless you intend to rape them. :smalltongue:

Finlam

2014-02-12, 07:34 AM

Not unless you intend to rape them. :smalltongue:

Rape (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=129) is (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=108) never funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kHq9cHSEg). =P

The Succubus

2014-02-12, 07:37 AM

I feel bad because I recognize a lot of this in myself - being gentlemanly, offering to pay for dinner, etc. I didn't realize women saw it in such a bad and creepy light.

The two reasons I tend do stuff like that is because I have very little faith in my ability to present myself as a nice and attractive person, so I clumsily do things like that in the hope that the person I'm doing it for will see something positive about me. I guess instead it just makes me look horribly creepy. :smallfrown:

As for the door stuff, I was always taught it was good manners, regardless of the person but then if it's seen as being "chivalrous" then it reflects badly on me.

EDIT: If someone thinks rape makes for suitable comedy, it tells me all I need to know about them. And its nothing good. A colleague I used to work with was raped and it had a devastating impact on her. She slowly recovered with time. When you've had to see a sobbing friend on the sofa, its really hard to see the funny side of it.

Zorg

2014-02-12, 07:42 AM

Rape (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=129) is (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=108) never funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kHq9cHSEg). =P

Actually as a victim of it I can say that, no, it's not funny at all.

Edit: Succubus- thing is, it's not always seen like that, it's just that that's the very start of the chain of reasoning that leads to "some women don't like to have men pay for them as splitting the bill eliminates one avenue for that chain to come up."

Finlam

2014-02-12, 07:43 AM

I didn't realize women saw it in such a bad and creepy light.

I wouldn't take the opinions of a couple posters on these boards as representative of the general populace. If anything, they seem quite the opposite.

Astrella

2014-02-12, 07:49 AM

You can make jokes about rape that aren't harmful, e.g. making fun of society's ridiculous standards surrounding it. But most of them aren't even jokes, if your idea of humor is just the idea of rape, that says some scary things.

Socratov

2014-02-12, 07:55 AM

*A troglodyte dressed in tennis clothes wanders in with a folding chair under one arm. He unfolds it and plops down to watch the Siuis-Coidzor match, then, once settled, leans over and whispers to a neighboring spectator* Personally Trog just opts for the old mutually agreed upon dine-n-dash, but that's Trog.

*Sits back and sips a tall cool gin and tonic through a straw as his head swivels back and forth at the ensuing action*

I agree with Trog. Gin-Tonics are great drinks and this match is indeed excellent. Longest rally since the Kobolds are true dragons argument...

On-topic:

1. Rape is about as funny as dead baby jokes i.e. extremely not
2. dating is completely borked. Cn we just accept the fact that over the course of centuries we have made it nigh impossible for people to reliably date without having a proverbial gauntlet to run in terms of social rules, contracts and don't get me started about what girls think are 'clear cut signs'.
3. Debating this issue (while fun to watch) is pointless. It stacking generalisation on generalisation. With the current non-homogenous mixture of women around in an area, let alone the world, we can safely say that it's pretty much a gamble and the the question is not "What should I do?" but "Am I feeling lucky, punk!".
4. Does anybody have some snacks for watching afore mentioned match between Siuis and Coidzor
5. Oh, and another gin-tonic if you would be so kind :smallcool:

FinnLassie

2014-02-12, 08:07 AM

I personally don't see guys wanting to pay for a meal as something they will use as a mean of getting to the date's pants. For me it's just always seemed unfair having someone pay for the full meal for me unless it's a special occasion (I used to not even budge on someone paying for me on my birthday, though), and I really don't see dates as a special occasion.

None of my friends who were on dates with those people who ended up trying to use the situation to their advantage thought they were trying to, either, although I can't speak for them and say that they don't use more caution when going on a date nowadays. I'd say that majority of the women don't expect men to try something unacceptable from the get-go, but one unpleasant experience on the way can change the perception on that completely.

Iruka

2014-02-12, 08:12 AM

It is. It happens (http://members.lovingyou.com/showthread.php?threadid=256976).

There are so many people in that thread I want to give a smarting blow to the inner ear ... :smallfurious:

Grinner

2014-02-12, 08:30 AM

My expectation that is being heaped is if you're acting out of self interest don't get pissy when people judge you for acting out of self interest. It's the "I'm doing it for the gains involved, but you're supposed to think I'm being altruistic" I have issue with.

See you're assuming that altruism is even a factor here. It's a possible intention, yes, but it's not the only one. It's unfair of you to assume that's the message being projected. The only thing you can fairly conclude is that they're being nice. You don't know whether it's because they like the person, because a moment of whimsy took them, or because that's something they frequently do.

See below.

Define fair. I think giving someone an opportunity while keeping in mind statistical facts is very fair.

Not automatically blowing someone off as a creep is fair, I think.

Then again, if you do that, you stand a chance of being sucked into somebody's game, so it's unfair to ask a woman to put herself at risk just to save a man some bruised feelings. But then again, that's not very fair to the man, who could very well have the most honest of intentions.

Fairness is tricky, yes?

random_guy

2014-02-12, 09:18 AM

How would letting the guy pay be allowing herself to get sucked into somebody's game? If the guy expects something in return for paying for dinner, fork over some cash and tell him you're even and he should back off.

As for myself, I am cheap, so I always split the check unless otherwise stated. I usually accomplish this by reading the other person. If they are reaching for their purse to get cash or a credit card, I assume they intend to cover their half. If they make no move to pay for their half, I assume I am expected to pick up the entire amount. I have had feminists insist on paying the entire bill, and I am okay with that.

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-12, 09:19 AM

Because when a woman is sexually assaulted, she is blamed for it (See: Stubenville), that education and media only focuses on victims of random violent sexual assaults, while the majority of them are perpetrated by partners or people known to the victim.

And when a man is assaulted, he isn't blamed for it? The media overall doesn't focus on crimes committed by strangers?

Your argumentation does not hold water once we leave narrow terrain of sexual violence. Men face more violence, and they are told it's their own fault or that "they should man up and take it".

Yet, it's a clear trend in studies on the matter that men are less risk averse than women. In fact, it's easily observable that because men are less risk averse, they end up overpresented in a myriad things ranging from substance abuse statistics to long-term unemployment to suicide to mugging victims. If we accept risk-averseness is a direct result of bad experiences and fear-mongering culture, men should by all right be more risk-averse than women. Yet, it's the opposite.

And going back to domestic violence, there are systematic flaws in DOJ's reporting and resent re-examination of NISVS data shows more men than women are victimized by domestic violence in contemporary times (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17042186&). Yet, which sex in popular culture is overwhelmingly blamed for domestic violence?

More pressingly the same set of data suggests 70% of male-on-female domestic violence was retaliationary. In kindergarded sandbox terms: "but she hit me first!". If this same pattern holds for domestic homicide and domestic rape, the implications are rather nasty.

Zorg

2014-02-12, 09:50 AM

And when a man is assaulted, he isn't blamed for it? The media overall doesn't focus on crimes committed by strangers?

Here in Australia we've had a trend lately of young men killed and severely injured by random attacks (similar to the knockout game in the US). I've not seen one report blaming them or querying what they could have done to make themselves safer, despite their intoxication (which was often referenced to highlight how they had no chance to defend themselves). I've seen plenty questioning women's actions and saying they should or should not have done this or that.

Your argumentation does not hold water once we leave narrow terrain of sexual violence. Men face more violence, and they are told it's their own fault or that "they should man up and take it".

Well it's a good thing that's what my argument was focusing on then, dontcha think? :smallsmile:

If we accept risk-averseness is a direct result of bad experiences and fear-mongering culture, men should by all right be more risk-averse than women. Yet, it's the opposite.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point that, to say it clearly again for the.. fourth time (?), there are a variety of quite specific reasons why women interacting with a man in a social situation is far more dangerous than for a man interacting with a woman.
Not about general violence or crime, but the very specific that certain crimes have a disproportionately high rate of the offender being personally known to the victim - ie violence against women is mostly "domestic" in nature, or sexual assault will be committed at a party by one's peers.

Thus, if you (hypothetical you, not you-you) display an attitude that might indicate you don't feel she's equal some women see that as a possible warning sign you may not respect her as an individual person - ie you do nice things because she's a woman not because it's nice. And men who don't respect women as people too tend not respect their boundaries.

Rosstin

2014-02-12, 09:50 AM

Of course when someone meets you for the first time they're going to assume the worst about you. That's perfectly healthy paranoia.

Some men are rapists. That's a fact. Someone who meets you for the first time has no idea what kind of person you are. It's not a challenge to your entire gender. It's just caution.

There's no sense getting bent out of shape about how unfair it is. You have to earn people's trust slowly.

I know it's a horrible, evil, awful feeling when someone looks at you with fear. No one wants to feel that. But it happens. Rather than being upset that some people fear you, better to learn how to put people at ease and understand them.

You're not going to change how society views men by being upset about it, and telling women that they're wrong and should be more trusting because YOU are a nice person.

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-12, 09:58 AM

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point that, to say it clearly again for the.. fourth time (?), there are a variety of quite specific reasons why women interacting with a man in a social situation is far more dangerous than for a man interacting with a woman.

Yes, but based on everything said, is interacting with another man any less dangerous for a man?

If not, why are men not as paranoid of other men, as women are of men?

The Succubus

2014-02-12, 09:58 AM

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-12, 09:59 AM

Ehehehe no. Assuming the worst is neither healthy nor polite.

Grinner

2014-02-12, 10:02 AM

How would letting the guy pay be allowing herself to get sucked into somebody's game? If the guy expects something in return for paying for dinner, fork over some cash and tell him you're even and he should back off.

Errr....That statement wasn't about paying for dinner specifically. In fact, it sprung from a rhetorical statement having absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

I guess I'm just perplexed as to why being nice, self-serving intentions or not, is such a crime.

*snip*

You're not going to change how society views men by being upset about it, and telling women that they're wrong and should be more trusting because YOU are a nice person.

As I said to random_guy, it's not even the issue here. Really. Life's unfair. I get that. We're good.

The Succubus

2014-02-12, 10:07 AM

Yes, but based on everything said, is interacting with another man any less dangerous for a man?

If not, why are men not as paranoid of other men, as women are of men?

Speak for yourself. I *am* paranoid about other men. I live in a less than nice part of London. Assuming the worst about that lone guy walking up behind me keeps me safe. Especially since I've seen two people get robbed (by men) right in front of my face.

Besides, someone recently told me that men have a higher chance of getting assaulted, so I think I'll keep my cautious view of the world, thanks.

I'm male. I'll never have perfect empathy about what it's like to be female and will never fully appreciate the hazards and risks women face. I do however, trust my friends opinions and learn from them how to behave more appropriately, so as to make them feel more comfortable,

Zorg

2014-02-12, 10:07 AM

Yes, but based on everything said, is interacting with another man any less dangerous for a man?

If not, why are men not as paranoid of other men, as women are of men?

I dunno, ask a man maybe?

warty goblin

2014-02-12, 10:08 AM

Yes, but based on everything said, is interacting with another man any less dangerous for a man?

If not, why are men not as paranoid of other men, as women are of men?

Around, say, the men who catcall me in the street? You bet I'm paranoid.

Aedilred

2014-02-12, 10:28 AM

However in all fairness, some "dutch" phrases have more to do with derogatory references. Here is the link if you wish to continue your research on the meaning of the phrase or similar phrases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Dutch)
Which is kind of odd, when I think about it, because apart from that brief period where we had a couple of wars, the Dutch have been pretty much our best mates throughout modern history. That we still had four wars with them - and adopted various derogatory terms making fun of them - says something about how we treat our friends, I suppose. We'd never do it to the Portuguese...

But then I'd never heard the term until relatively recently anyway. I'd always assumed it was an American thing.

Ehehehe no. Assuming the worst is neither healthy nor polite.
Indeed. In fact, I fear it might actually be counterproductive. Almost by definition, I'd have thought a disrespectful jerk is going to be put off less by a standoffish and paranoid attitude than someone who values your right to form your own opinion and interprets it incorrectly.

Frankly, I'm sick of the whole thing. I've spent the whole of my adult life struggling against the presumption that I'm a sex offender on no more basis than my gender, trying to do my best to dispel that, and seeing absolutely no improvement in my social credit rating whatsoever. I just don't have the energy any more; while not the only reason, it's certainly a factor in my having become essentially a hermit who does his best to avoid meeting new people. So, good job, world.

Murska

2014-02-12, 10:59 AM

Hm. I read this thread through on a whim, despite not really having an opinion about the original subject.

But there's a number of things I'd like to comment on, in the hopes of making progress in some areas of the debate or, failing that, at least to clarify my own thinking, an activity which I find enjoyable.

> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted -> unreasonable.
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated -> reasonable.

This is wrong. But what was being said was not this. What was being said was:

> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted -> reasonable
> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted, girl thinks boy intended to insult her -> unreasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated -> reasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated, boy thinks girl intended to emasculate him -> unreasonable

Even this, with the caveat that the unreasonable parts might still be reasonable if there is further evidence that it was actually intended as an insult, but that the action in itself is not sufficient evidence.

Now, Zorg argues that since many men are a danger to women, it is reasonable for women to be cautious around men. This is reasonable. But you know what? It is also sexist! You are prejudiced against men because the trait 'is a man' is statistically linked to 'is a threat'. That is not wrong. Sexism is a very negatively connotated word, but it is not inherently wrong. Genders have meaningful statistical differences, and if statistically people who have the trait 'X' are more likely to have another trait 'Y', then it makes sense to assign a higher probability for an individual with trait 'X' to also have trait 'Y', even if you don't know if s/he has trait 'Y'.

To avoid the emotional connotations of the words, an example would be that in a hypothetical alternate world it is common knowledge that 92% of all people who have a red forehead are psychotic, extremely dangerous and prone to violent outbursts. This still means that 8 out of 100 people who have a red forehead are not. But if you see someone on the street with a red forehead, you'd be very sensible to steer clear, even if you are prejudicing them on appearance. The bad kind of prejudice is one where you assign bad traits to the prejudiced groups that they don't actually possess (like telling your children that all people with red forehead are also liars even though there is no statistical correlation) and not trying to find better ways to differentiate the psychotic ones from the ordinary people so that you could judge people with better than 92% accuracy to be psychotic and thus no longer have to be wary of even those 8 'innocent' red-forehead people.

If you have a woman tell you what she thinks she's supposed to, and you do what you think you're supposed to, and everyone is unhappy because of emotional baggage they don't always understand and don't always see as subjective over objective, that's a tragedy and both people are victims.

This is just one part of this particular discussion, that I'm quoting. But in general.

A common view is that, in the end, for the purposes of our ethics, it is people who decide what they believe in, and people who decide what they do. If a societal contract is a poor one that leads to confusion and hurt feelings, then people can not follow it, and instead be clear about the situation. And if doing that leads to less hurt feelings, then they'd be right to do that. The fact that it is extremely hard to defeat your own upbringing and the cultural norms that have been imprinted into you all your life is an extenuating circumstance, meaning that there is very little blame we can assign to people who fail to do the good thing over the bad here, but it is still the act itself that must be judged. It may be an understandable act, mostly caused by the circumstances, but we can never wholly absolve the actor of the act.

Now, the idea that the person is responsible for what they do is a very common stance in general, and the basis for much of our justice and ethics systems.. But from a hypothetical standpoint, we can argue that because of determinism the act was actually caused by various things that happened before (in this case, as an example, specific memes being transmitted by sound waves from one brain to another and then imprinted on the neurons of that new brain, later affecting the actions of the body controlled by that brain so that it produced sound waves that, in turn, caused hurt feelings), and there is no free will. This is what I believe, actually. However, that simply transforms justice and ethics into utility functions. If a psychopath murdering people does not actually have 'free will' with which he chooses to murder them, that does not mean he is innocent. He's still committing those acts. The punishment for him is, in this case, given to stop those acts from being committed, instead of because of some more-or-less vague notion that because he chose to do evil, he deserves punishment. I think 'punish a transgressor to stop transgressions from happening' is a better way to handle justice and ethics than 'punish a transgressor because he deserves it for what he did'.

But if you absolve the girl who lied to the guy of any blame because her actions were controlled by her culture and upbringing, then you also have to absolve the soldier who massacred the unarmed civilians because his actions were controlled by his culture and upbringing. And if you want to have a functioning justice system and a functioning society, you still have to give them both appropriate judgment even if you do not blame them. Of course proportional to the act - killing a human being is obviously a very bad thing and requires a strong deterrent to prevent it from happening again, while lying to someone and hurting his feelings (in this very specific way, not in general) is not such a bad thing in comparison (specifically here, in general it sometimes is a very bad thing) and is not really worth any punishment to speak of. (In this particular case.)

(Incidentally, this also means that I honestly believe that if I could be absolutely certain that a murderer will never repeat his act and that letting him go free won't cause more harm to people (such as the victim's family being in emotional distress, or someone else seeing him walk free and deciding to commit a murder as well) than him being imprisoned causes to him, the right thing to do would be to let him go free. Unfortunately, I am not omniscient. But a practical example where this kind of thinking actually means my thoughts differ from the thoughts of some other people is hunting down 80-90 year old people who committed war crimes in World War 2, putting them through public trials and imprisoning them. I think that's wrong, and it would be a net good to just let them be, if we consider all the harm and good done either way.)

Rosstin

2014-02-12, 11:08 AM

Alad

2014-02-12, 11:56 AM

I dunno, ask a man maybe?
Seeing as you left it wide open. I am pretty paranoid of people when I first meet them
(Especially if they appear physically stronger than me. Sorry if that sounds cruel but its blunt pragmatism.)
I dont like being drunk anywhere other than at a friends house because it makes me feel acutely vulnerable and I end up being stressed out.
As such I usually end up babysitting my more drunk than me friends at the end of an evening out.
Thats about as far as my wariness of other people goes, although I will try to avoid people on the street if I am alone and few other people are around.

Ehehehe no. Assuming the worst is neither healthy nor polite.
Assuming the worst, is bad. Being prepared and having considered the worst is as far as I'm concerned good sense. and I wouldn't truly resent it. I mean I'd probably be hurt but I'd understand.

Coidzor

2014-02-12, 01:28 PM

> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted -> reasonable
> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted, girl thinks boy intended to insult her -> unreasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated -> reasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated, boy thinks girl intended to emasculate him -> unreasonable

Indeed. I think we also touched upon the following as well though:

> Boy offers to pay for girl, girl feels insulted -> problematic and should probably be addressed
> Girl offers to pay for boy, boy feels emasculated -> problematic and should probably be addressed

The main difference being the primary onus of addressing it. The boy who feels emasculated is expected to grow up and become internally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname. The girl who feels insulted is expected to look outside of herself and become externally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname.

Not quite sure how to present the reactions to going dutch, or how many permutations on that theme to list though. Probably not as crucial though, and more just a "sense of completeness/completion thing."

Even this, with the caveat that the unreasonable parts might still be reasonable if there is further evidence that it was actually intended as an insult, but that the action in itself is not sufficient evidence.

Agreed, there's a difference between being aware of problems and taking steps to protect one's self and presuming guilt until proof of innocence.

Aedilred

2014-02-12, 01:43 PM

Agreed, there's a difference between being aware of problems and taking steps to protect one's self and presuming guilt until proof of innocence.
Especially when said innocence can never be satisfactorily proven. Nobody can ever dispel that presumption, because you will always believe they have that propensity: all they can say in their defence is that they haven't done that yet.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-12, 03:36 PM

I can't read SiuiS posts, so I won't reply directly to her, but from the quoted material I've seen it looks like she misinterpreted my assertion that "Men are nice to women because they are attracted to them" as "Men are only nice to women they find attractive", which has then been picked up as an argument by others, so I feel like this should be adressed.

I'm not kind just to women I'm attracted to. But I am kind to women in general because I find them attractive as a whole. This doesn't mean that each time I'm kind to a woman I expect/hope that somehow this will get me in her panties, as some of you seemed to imply.
It's hard to explain properly, expecially in english, but I expect that a lot of men can probably relate to me on this matter.
Of course there are undeniably some men that are only kind to women they hope to have sex with, but I also believe that they are a minority.
__________________________________________________ _____________

With this out of the way, I'd like to talk about prejudice and the idea that paranoia and sexism (towards men!) is somehow justified.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that you should never repay evil with evil. I'm using the term "evil" very loosely here, we could also use the term "negativity" if you prefer.
If someone hurts you it is not your right to hurt them back. This is expecially true when we are talking about broad categories of people instead of individuals, when you are guaranteed to hurt someone innocent in the process.
If an indian robs me, is it right for me to start looking at indians as if they are all criminals until proven innocent? No, of course not.
But it is understandable. Fear is a powerful emotion, but to act based entirely on it can't have good consequences.
I'm not saying that a woman that has had bad experiences with men doesn't have a right to be afraid of them. What I am saying is that, no matter how understandable it might be, she should try to remeber that most men are not criminals or rapists and that treating them as such will only generate more negativity and more sadness. Paranoia is not the same as caution.
Caution is not inviting a complete stranger to your home.
Paranoia is thinking that every men is out to get you.

Reinforcing stereotypes and spreading prejudice only because you have been a victim of stereotypes and prejudice yourself is not justified. And, while understandable on a basic level, it's still wrong. It's still repaying evil with evil, instead of trying to promote good behaviour by being the better person.
More pragmatically, how do you think people react to being subjected to prejudice? Do you think that it makes them more likely to listen to what you have to say? Do you think that treating them badly will make them understand why it is wrong to treat someone badly? Or it will just encourage them to retaliate and feel legitimized in their original prejudice?
"Yeah, I'm a misogynist, but look at all those feminists saying that all men are potential rapists, clearly my prejudice is justified!" is also understandable. It's wrong, of course, but still understandable, because now this hypotetical person has the excuse of having to defend himself. So instead of fueling hatred with more hatred, why don't you try to elevate yourselves above it and take the first step towards a better humanity?
I don't mean to say it's easy, in fact it's by far the hardest route, but I think it's worth it. And before someone completly misses the point, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't defend yourselves or that you should take whatever abuse without saying a word. I'm saying that there is a line between "defending" and "attacking". Sometimes it's hard to see it, but it's there.
It's the difference between calling the police when you get robbed and shooting the robber.

Indeed. I think we also touched upon the following as well though:

> Boy offers to pay for girl, girl feels insulted -> problematic and should probably be addressed
> Girl offers to pay for boy, boy feels emasculated -> problematic and should probably be addressed

The main difference being the primary onus of addressing it. The boy who feels emasculated is expected to grow up and become internally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname. The girl who feels insulted is expected to look outside of herself and become externally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname.

Not quite sure how to present the reactions to going dutch, or how many permutations on that theme to list though. Probably not as crucial though, and more just a "sense of completeness/completion thing."

Agreed, there's a difference between being aware of problems and taking steps to protect one's self and presuming guilt until proof of innocence.

Especially when said innocence can never be satisfactorily proven. Nobody can ever dispel that presumption, because you will always believe they have that propensity: all they can say in their defence is that they haven't done that yet.

I also agree with both these posts.

Eldariel

2014-02-12, 04:14 PM

I'm not kind just to women I'm attracted to. But I am kind to women in general because I find them attractive as a whole. This doesn't mean that each time I'm kind to a woman I expect/hope that somehow this will get me in her panties, as some of you seemed to imply.
It's hard to explain properly, expecially in english, but I expect that a lot of men can probably relate to me on this matter.
Of course there are undeniably some men that are only kind to women they hope to have sex with, but I also believe that they are a minority.

You're South European, isn't it basically a rule there? The matter is a bit different in the north but from what I gather, outside Catalan the whole Mediterranean area considers it extremely rude to not pay for your date's dinner (and the Spaniards specifically have a term for "do it the Catalan way").

Murska

2014-02-12, 04:19 PM

Karoht

2014-02-12, 04:31 PM

@Paying for meals
My fiancee and I alternated at first. Then we did the 'scramble to get the bill' thing. It became a bit of a contest of one-upmanship. It's flattering to know that your partner cares about you enough to try and trick you out of paying for a meal. It's also flattering to know that your partner knows how you think, knows your tricks and traps, and actively thinks a way around them.
Nearly a decade later (wedding in september on our 10th anniversary), and we still play this game with each other.

As far as dating before that, I offered, and if it seemed like it would cause an issue I would back off and not push the issue. But I made a point of offering every time. Why? Because if I go on a date and I give off the expectation that the other person pay for me, that is pretty rude, gender being completely irrelevant.

If I were back in the dating scene, these are my rules:
-Relax
-Have fun
-No pressure
-Commit when you're both ready
-Don't be pushy
-Don't give off the creepy vibe
-Give space
-Be yourself.
-Make sure your partner is comfortable/encouraged to be his/herself.
-In all cases treat the other person like a person not an object

Coidzor

2014-02-12, 04:40 PM

Then, what is the issue with, when some men are doing very bad things (rape, assault), women responding with a less bad thing (being cautious of all men)? Women being cautious of men might hurt some folks' feelings, but it also saves many women from being raped or assaulted, so the net harm done is much less.

It might be the result of people talking past one another or (as far as I can tell) accidental strawmanning, but it's less the idea of being cautious and more an idea of... hypervigilance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervigilance)(?) and trying to encourage that kind of mindset as normative that is being reacted to. I think.

Or it might be a matter of degree/wording/semantics/attitude/ethos and thus potentially messier?

Kalmageddon

2014-02-12, 04:58 PM

I agree that responding to 'bad thing' with 'equally bad thing' or 'worse thing' tends to not be useful at reducing the amount of 'bad'.

But you seem to agree with me in that responding to 'bad thing' with nothing at all is not really viable. If a serial killer is murdering people, putting him in prison seems to me a better option than doing nothing.

Then, what is the issue with, when some men are doing very bad things (rape, assault), women responding with a less bad thing (being cautious of all men)? Women being cautious of men might hurt some folks' feelings, but it also saves many women from being raped or assaulted, so the net harm done is much less.

You seem to have misread my post.
I never said that being cautious is wrong. I said that being paranoid is.
And if you are arguing that promoting the idea that "all men are potential rapists" is "caution", then we just have to disagree on the definition of the word.

it's less the idea of being cautious and more an idea of... hypervigilance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervigilance)(?) and trying to encourage that kind of mindset as normative that is being reacted to. I think.

You are correct.

Murska

2014-02-12, 05:03 PM

Well, nobody on this thread has said that being paranoid is a good thing. So I don't see your point.

In this case...

Paranoia: "Men are likely to be rapists!"
Caution: "Men are more likely to be rapists than women."

Kalmageddon

2014-02-12, 05:10 PM

Paranoia: "Men are likely to be rapists!"
Caution: "Men are more likely to be rapists than women."

Right.
Goodbye everyone.

Aedilred

2014-02-12, 05:12 PM

In this case...

Paranoia: "Men are likely to be rapists!"
Caution: "Men are more likely to be rapists than women."
The problem isn't necessarily with the starting premise, it's with the ensuing (apparent) conclusions. e.g. "Men are more likely to be rapists than women... so I should treat all of them as if they are". Exaggerated for rhetorical effect, although not all that much.

blunk

2014-02-12, 05:20 PM

The problem isn't necessarily with the starting premise, it's with the ensuing (apparent) conclusions. e.g. "Men are more likely to be rapists than women... so I should treat all of them as if they are". Exaggerated for rhetorical effect, although not all that much.Sounds a lot like profiling, hm? And I hear that profiling is a bad thing.

Okay okay, I'll play nice: profiling is also a nuanced subject and depends a lot on context, the relationship between subject and object, whether it's supported with public funds or not, etc., etc., etc. I don't want to open that can of worms, but just point out what road this argument goes down.

Murska

2014-02-12, 05:24 PM

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 01:14 AM

Hmm. On the off-chance Kalmageddon pops in, could someone point out the folly of arguing against a statement you don't know, based on opinions of those arguing against or for it?

Also, I may have lost some quotes. I slept for like 14 hours today @^@

The next time I'll think to pay for a meal / drink / whatever, I'll try to remember that I could be considered in the same way as a rapist.
Can I still offer a coffee to my male friends? :smallsigh:

Nope! Because then if you only treat your guy friends people will wonder why.
I am of course teasing. It's gotten lost that the problem is not offering to treat someone but insisting on it to the point of feeling emotionally hurt if they refuse, sans mitigating factors. Treat your friends like you always do!they know you. :smallsmile:

I feel bad because I recognize a lot of this in myself - being gentlemanly, offering to pay for dinner, etc. I didn't realize women saw it in such a bad and creepy light.

The two reasons I tend do stuff like that is because I have very little faith in my ability to present myself as a nice and attractive person, so I clumsily do things like that in the hope that the person I'm doing it for will see something positive about me. I guess instead it just makes me look horribly creepy. :smallfrown:

As for the door stuff, I was always taught it was good manners, regardless of the person but then if it's seen as being "chivalrous" then it reflects badly on me.

It's not universal; far from it. And you shouldn't stop, by any means. Just be aware.

You know you're doing traditionally 'romantic' and 'chivalrous' things though. You're banking on the baggage of the traditions to work for you. For some people that's fine! It's sweet, it's a known quantity, they appreciate tradition, it's a flag they understand, etc., and that's the entire point. Some people will see that as laziness instead, or as buying into something they don't like, but that's also fine. It's only not fine when everyone who thinks it's cute/sweet lives miles away and everyone in your vicinity feels it's lazy and predatory. >_<

As always, just being aware of possible outcomes so you can moderate your response to their response. Mindfulness is all we ask, really, because if if you (general you, not Succubus) know that the basic premise of chivalrous action doesn't mean you're owed anything, you won't retaliate when you aren't given your 'proper due'.

EDIT: If someone thinks rape makes for suitable comedy, it tells me all I need to know about them. And its nothing good. A colleague I used to work with was raped and it had a devastating impact on her. She slowly recovered with time. When you've had to see a sobbing friend on the sofa, its really hard to see the funny side of it.

I think it may warrant a bit more investigation than that. I understand the choice though.

I agree with Trog. Gin-Tonics are great drinks and this match is indeed excellent. Longest rally since the Kobolds are true dragons argument...

You don't watch me argue much, do you? It's always either "oh it's a misunderstanding sorry/oh I see your point, okay" or fierce engagements.

2. dating is completely borked. Cn we just accept the fact that over the course of centuries we have made it nigh impossible for people to reliably date without having a proverbial gauntlet to run in terms of social rules, contracts and don't get me started about what girls think are 'clear cut signs'.

You know, you were making sense up until "and girls! They're so whacky, amirite?". You do realize that men are just as often the ones who swear by clear signs and obvious signals?

3. Debating this issue (while fun to watch) is pointless. It stacking generalisation on generalisation.

I disagree. Yes, simplistically, deciding on a binary answer for the future is the expected outcome. But there is also the more interesting and far reaching benefits. Each person here comes away (hopefully!) with an enhanced understanding, and greater breadth of knowledge to work with. Yes, certainly, some people will just throw up their hands and decry others as being wrong on the Internet, but hopefully the more intelligent people will have food for thought to work with and allow for separate dissemination of improved social knowledge. That's the benefit of the Internet.

See you're assuming that altruism is even a factor here.

Well, no. Actually I used altruism as a buzzword because it came up earlier. It may have been sloppy but I was relying on the inertia of the thread to provide context for the statement.

Not automatically blowing someone off as a creep is fair, I think.

You've made the logical failing of thinking because I said do not rush into their open arms for a loving embrace, that the only other possible choice is to spurn them violently. The only thing I have advocated is mindful understanding. Attributing an action or intention to me is silly.

Fairness is tricky, yes?

And still undefined, despite my request :smallwink:
My friend has a saying he's fond of, that I can never remember, but it's something like there's a difference between what's just and what's fair (with an obvious bias to preferring what is just). When discussing these things, it behooves is all to be very, very clear, and very, very aware of the complexity of the situations discussed.

Yes, but based on everything said, is interacting with another man any less dangerous for a man?

Sexually, yes.

If not, why are men not as paranoid of other men, as women are of men?

False premise. Men are paranoid, but rather than shrinking away they become capable of violence to deter violence. Isn't that the entire point of the college trend for groups of males to band together, tease each other into being strong and reinforce it by propagating semi-playful violence against each other?

The answer is 'men are more inured to violence, because unlike the 'softer sex' they don't have the same low level of being generally coddled so they don't view their everyday assaults as being as grievous as a woman would in general'.

Stereotypical, and no data aside from anecdotes, but it's an answer at least as valid so far.

I guess I'm just perplexed as to why being nice, self-serving intentions or not, is such a crime.

It's not, and no one has yet said it is.

This is wrong. But what was being said was not this. What was being said was:

> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted -> reasonable
> Boy insists on paying for girl, girl feels insulted, girl thinks boy intended to insult her -> unreasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated -> reasonable
> Girl insists on paying for boy, boy feels emasculated, boy thinks girl intended to emasculate him -> unreasonable

Even this, with the caveat that the unreasonable parts might still be reasonable if there is further evidence that it was actually intended as an insult, but that the action in itself is not sufficient evidence.

Well said.

Now, Zorg argues that since many men are a danger to women, it is reasonable for women to be cautious around men. This is reasonable. But you know what? It is also sexist! You are prejudiced against men because the trait 'is a man' is statistically linked to 'is a threat'. That is not wrong. Sexism is a very negatively connotated word, but it is not inherently wrong. Genders have meaningful statistical differences, and if statistically people who have the trait 'X' are more likely to have another trait 'Y', then it makes sense to assign a higher probability for an individual with trait 'X' to also have trait 'Y', even if you don't know if s/he has trait 'Y'.

This is also true.

This is just one part of this particular discussion, that I'm quoting. But in general.

A common view is that, in the end, for the purposes of our ethics, it is people who decide what they believe in, and people who decide what they do. If a societal contract is a poor one that leads to confusion and hurt feelings, then people can not follow it, and instead be clear about the situation. And if doing that leads to less hurt feelings, then they'd be right to do that. The fact that it is extremely hard to defeat your own upbringing and the cultural norms that have been imprinted into you all your life is an extenuating circumstance, meaning that there is very little blame we can assign to people who fail to do the good thing over the bad here, but it is still the act itself that must be judged. It may be an understandable act, mostly caused by the circumstances, but we can never wholly absolve the actor of the act.

I dunno. I think that mindful dedication can indeed overcome upbringing.

Now, the idea that the person is

We don't discuss religion in the Playground.

But if you absolve the girl who lied to the guy of any blame because her actions were controlled by her culture and upbringing, then you also have to absolve the soldier who massacred the unarmed civilians because his actions were controlled by his culture and upbringing.

I disagree.

Indeed. I think we also touched upon the following as well though:

> Boy offers to pay for girl, girl feels insulted -> problematic and should probably be addressed
> Girl offers to pay for boy, boy feels emasculated -> problematic and should probably be addressed

The main difference being the primary onus of addressing it. The boy who feels emasculated is expected to grow up and become internally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname. The girl who feels insulted is expected to look outside of herself and become externally more balanced/healthy/mature/wossname.

Interesting.

Agreed, there's a difference between being aware of problems and taking steps to protect one's self and presuming guilt until proof of innocence.

Exactly!

Paranoia: "Men are likely to be rapists!"
Caution: "Men are more likely to be rapists than women."

Aside from http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3931/rolleyes0qd.gif at Kal, I want to say that I don't think that's worth stating without statistics to back it up. I know that women sexually assault men rather often and society doesn't count it until a it's very severe because "men are supposed to be all about that", and I know of two people personally who were sexually assaulted by women.

I think it might be worth noting what, exactly, one means by rape, but then we run into the inherent squick. I will say that as far as I recall, the highest count of aggravated sexual assault is on men, by men, in prison systems. This messes with the system because prisoners lie, repeat victims add to total rapes but not total rape victim count, men often lie because they feel it is more personally damaging to their inherent self worth (I am not comfortable with this assertion, actually, but it came to mind), etc.

The problem isn't necessarily with the starting premise, it's with the ensuing (apparent) conclusions. e.g. "Men are more likely to be rapists than women... so I should treat all of them as if they are". Exaggerated for rhetorical effect, although not all that much.

That is actual common understanding amongst some people! And it makes me sad.

I don't think anyone in this thread has actually advocated such. I think it's a matter of inflation, where one side said "just take the damn compliment!", the other said "that's exactly how this whole bad joojoo starts", the first responded with "it's not like you'll be forced to have sex or anything, relax!" The second said "actually... [link to statistics]" and the first said "OMG you think I'm a rapist?! Wtf? I am offended so your entire premise is bunk".

Both sides have valid points. Only one side has valid points in the concrete 'on a date, mutually consenting to it, payment for date can cause waves'. It's a very specific scenario and I think conversation drifted away from it because conversation wants to continue but in that venue there's nowhere left to go.

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-13, 01:54 AM

SiuS: So your answer is basically: "men are equally cautious, but instead of becoming aversive or frightened, they become strong and confident enough to not feel the need to be frightened or aversive."

Okay, so we know what response strategies different sexes are following.

Follow-up question: which strategy they ought to be following?

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 02:28 AM

Oh right, Dutch!

Honestly, as a wee'n, I just assumed Dutch courage meant the Dutch were better than the rest. Like, there's an American, Dutch, British, and French soldier somewhere And it's active battle and it's terrifying, and when things get worse the American gets on edge, then runs, the Brit keeps a stiff lip, and runs, the Frenchman does something stereotypically french, and runs, and the Dutchman takes a swig from a pocket flask (or a chug) and stays his post.

Maybe I'm just not human enough? Attributing positive attributes to people I don't know! How bizarre~

SiuS: So your answer is basically: "men are equally cautious, but instead of becoming aversive or frightened, they become strong and confident enough to not feel the need to be frightened or aversive."

Okay, so we know what response strategies different sexes are following.

Follow-up question: which strategy they ought to be following?

No, my response is "your premise is invalid because you're excising most of the relevant data" with a follow up anecdote that can be summed up as "they become strong and courageous" equally well as "they are bullied and become bullies, lashing out at any who challenge status quo to avoid blame for their choice to do so".

Aedilred

2014-02-13, 03:12 AM

Oh right, Dutch!

Honestly, as a wee'n, I just assumed Dutch courage meant the Dutch were better than the rest. Like, there's an American, Dutch, British, and French soldier somewhere And it's active battle and it's terrifying, and when things get worse the American gets on edge, then runs, the Brit keeps a stiff lip, and runs, the Frenchman does something stereotypically french, and runs, and the Dutchman takes a swig from a pocket flask (or a chug) and stays his post.

Maybe I'm just not human enough? Attributing positive attributes to people I don't know! How bizarre
To be fair, the etymology might not be originally derogatory (although probably most such etymologies are). Alcohol is "courage in a bottle", and the classic "courage" spirit was gin; gin being monumentally popular during one of those fabled periods when the English made a heroic effort to step it up from the regular common-or-garden collective continuous drinking binge habitual in these islands into an extraordinary collective continuous drinking binge. Gin originates from the Netherlands (I think, or at least that's who first brought it into Britain) so the correlation is obvious even if the Dutch didn't themselves drink the gin. Which they probably did.

Knaight

2014-02-13, 03:19 AM

And if you are arguing that promoting the idea that "all men are potential rapists" is "caution", then we just have to disagree on the definition of the word.

It's not "all men are potential rapists". It's that the actual members of the population in question blend into society, and as such are watched for. To use an analogy - I generally don't walk by a particular bar in my town at night. There have been a fair amount of knife fights, stabbings, and general violence related to it that spreads into nearby streets (though as far as I know firearms haven't been involved). My avoiding said area is not an indictment on the people there. I think the vast majority of the people there don't pick knife fights. On any given day, a knife fight probably won't break out, precisely because of this. It still has as much violence as the rest of the bars in town put together though, so it's entirely reasonable to avoid it on the off chance that some of the type to actually pick knife fights are there.

In short - the vast majority of the broad population in question isn't in the violent population in question. The violent population is hidden, and should be watched for, and awareness of said violent population when planning is helpful.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 05:30 AM

To be fair, the etymology might not be originally derogatory (although probably most such etymologies are). Alcohol is "courage in a bottle", and the classic "courage" spirit was gin; gin being monumentally popular during one of those fabled periods when the English made a heroic effort to step it up from the regular common-or-garden collective continuous drinking binge habitual in these islands into an extraordinary collective continuous drinking binge. Gin originates from the Netherlands (I think, or at least that's who first brought it into Britain) so the correlation is obvious even if the Dutch didn't themselves drink the gin. Which they probably did.

it's true, Gin (or as it's knowns here: Jenever) is a Dutch invention.

@Siuis: I have been on that other side, terminating the discussion a couple of times :smallamused:

Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert.

On whether this discussion is going anywhere, yes you are partly right, some new information comes up every now and then of which we all benefit (unless one walks away from the discussion), though a lot of the discussion is going on in circles until people just give up out of frustration. So in my opinion my point still stands: it's useless. That doesn't mean it isn't fun though :smalltongue:

I also love how in this thread assumptions and arguments are made (almost) exclusively in binary fashion, despite people's attempts to mitigate it's binaryness :smallamused:

Kalmageddon

2014-02-13, 05:51 AM

women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert.
Are you disrespecting Dethklok fans? :smallmad:

Astrella

2014-02-13, 05:57 AM

Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert.

It's funny how you talk against binary and then make an absolute statement. There is no "women's social interaction", there is stuff that is socialized yes, but in the end every woman will interact in a different fashion. I don't get where this idea comes from that entire genders act in the same way. >.>

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 06:29 AM

It's not "all men are potential rapists". It's that the actual members of the population in question blend into society, and as such are watched for. To use an analogy - I generally don't walk by a particular bar in my town at night. There have been a fair amount of knife fights, stabbings, and general violence related to it that spreads into nearby streets (though as far as I know firearms haven't been involved). My avoiding said area is not an indictment on the people there. I think the vast majority of the people there don't pick knife fights. On any given day, a knife fight probably won't break out, precisely because of this. It still has as much violence as the rest of the bars in town put together though, so it's entirely reasonable to avoid it on the off chance that some of the type to actually pick knife fights are there.

In short - the vast majority of the broad population in question isn't in the violent population in question. The violent population is hidden, and should be watched for, and awareness of said violent population when planning is helpful.

Bravo

Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert.

The same could be said about the community for LARPers at amtgard, who have a complex and exclusionary social system on the electric samurai forums that promote certain usually-considered-rude behaviors as part of getting ahead or fitting in. Or for men, for that matter, need to tear others down to rise, need to condemn women for wanting axe and slave after it themselves, and use everything as a penis metaphor to make any conversation. Or for any other group to which we attribute trends based on a suitably large amount of them having that vague direction and despite a suitably large amount of them not having it.

I have a black friend who agrees with me that black people are just people and people need to give up on racial tension. I had a black friend who disagreed and said different races should stay separate becauE they were inherently incompatible. I understand the view but know it's not objective and tells me more about his upbringing that it does about all people of African descent.

You have here several women saying that women are just people, and several women saying women are Different From Men and are irreconcilable with your idea of logic and sense. Does that tell you about half of the human population stretching back for millennia, or does that tell you about the biases of women you know?

On whether this discussion is going anywhere, yes you are partly right, some new information comes up every now and then of which we all benefit (unless one walks away from the discussion), though a lot of the discussion is going on in circles until people just give up out of frustration. So in my opinion my point still stands: it's useless. That doesn't mean it isn't fun though

I don't understand this paragraph. It's true that there is a use to this discussion but it doesn't have a use?

I also love how in this thread assumptions and arguments are made (almost) exclusively in binary fashion, despite people's attempts to mitigate it's binaryness :smallamused:

Aye. There are no absolutes. Not even this one.

It's funny how you talk against binary and then make an absolute statement. There is no "women's social interaction", there is stuff that is socialized yes, but in the end every woman will interact in a different fashion. I don't get where this idea comes from that entire genders act in the same way. >.>

Partly from confirmation bias. It's easy to see women who don't act like women as the outliers. Especially because of, say, us; I know. Key part of my emotional happiness is sticking to some stereo- or arche-types as I know and understand them, and some of my enjoyment of hosiery and heels is coded into this. Or wait, reverse that. Or.. Well, you get it.

Killer Angel

2014-02-13, 06:53 AM

Nope! Because then if you only treat your guy friends people will wonder why.
I am of course teasing. It's gotten lost that the problem is not offering to treat someone but insisting on it to the point of feeling emotionally hurt if they refuse, sans mitigating factors. Treat your friends like you always do!they know you. :smallsmile:

:smallwink:

Thus, if you (hypothetical you, not you-you) display an attitude that might indicate you don't feel she's equal some women see that as a possible warning sign you may not respect her as an individual person - ie you do nice things because she's a woman not because it's nice. And men who don't respect women as people too tend not respect their boundaries.

I do nice things to nice persons, but it's different, when we come to gender's relations. I'll try to explain.
I go at a concert, i know a couple of guys: we speak, discuss, have fun... they're nice, so I buy some beer for all of us. It's a sort of camaraderie.
I go at a bar, I know a couple of girls: we speak, discuss, have fun... they're nice, so I buy some beer for all of us. It's a sort of gallantry. I have no intention to receive some special attention from them, I only mean to pass a nice evening.
But what pushes me to offer some beer to man or women, is tied to many things, including gender relationships. The fact that the thing can involve different psycological aspects, doesn't imply that i don't respect women as people.

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-13, 06:53 AM

No, my response is "your premise is invalid because you're excising most of the relevant data."

I consider this highly ironic, since pointing this out was why I got involved in this discussion. Rape is a sub-set of violent crime and whether women actually face an increased threat from men can't be answered without considering overall chances of men encountering physical violence in general. The way you said "sexually, yes" is just falling back to "rape is a special kind of evil".

Essentially, here's how your stance (and Zorg's, for that matter), looks to me:

Women face less overall risk of violence from men.
However, women face more risk of a specific kind of violence.
Said violence is considered especially bad.
Hence, women are especially justified for fearing men.

Do correct me if you disagree.

with a follow up anecdote that can be summed up as "they become strong and courageous" equally well as "they are bullied and become bullies, lashing out at any who challenge status quo to avoid blame for their choice to do so".

We're not in disagreement here.

Now answer the question and tell me whether this is better or worse than what women are doing and why.

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 07:13 AM

I consider this highly ironic, since pointing this out was why I got involved in this discussion. Rape is a sub-set of violent crime and whether women actually face an increased threat from men can't be answered without considering overall chances of men encountering physical violence in general. The way you said "sexually, yes" is just falling back to "rape is a special kind of evil".

Well, no. There's excising and there's context.

Violent beatings are an issue when rejecting advances preceded by being nice... On women, by men. Not on men by men, and not on men by women. Other kinda of violence are inapplicable to the situation of why a woman would be wary of a man, just like armed burglary is not specific to that context, play fights gone too far are not specific to that context, and bein. Raped in an all-male prison is not specific to that context.

"Other crimes happen too" is not relevant unless and until you recontextualize everything into a general sexual assault discussion. Zorg even acknowledged this; yes, there are other and related issues. No, they don't apply in this worrisome context.

Women face less overall risk of violence from men.
However, women face more risk of a specific kind of violence.
Said violence is considered especially bad.
Hence, women are especially justified for fearing men.

Do correct me if you disagree.

Oh, aye. I do in fact disagree. But I do see and understand Zorg's point, which is an explanation and not an endorsement.

We're not in disagreement here.

Now answer the question and tell me whether this is better or worse than what women are doing and why.

Not necessary. All that as required is pointing out why your totally true and valid data doesn't matter for the turn this thread has taken. Start a thread about disparity of violence and it's perceptions between sexes and I will possibly join in, though.

I also am a jerk in that I very rarely give my own opinion on things. My personal opinion is usually very different. That's why I say "this progression of thoughts makes sense" or similar.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 07:45 AM

Are you disrespecting Dethklok fans? :smallmad:
No, I'm not, just that I make the comparison doesn't mean I don't respect people who are actually able to do things like that... I mean, try listening along to a a group of women talking, odds are you pick up about 40% fo what's actually discussed.

It's funny how you talk against binary and then make an absolute statement.It's called a paradox, part of a literary styles
There is no "women's social interaction", there is stuff that is socialized yes, but in the end every woman will interact in a different fashion. I don't get where this idea comes from that entire genders act in the same way. >.> I can pretty much identify a trend, but that might be just me...

Bravo

The same could be said about the community for LARPers at amtgard, who have a complex and exclusionary social system on the electric samurai forums that promote certain usually-considered-rude behaviors as part of getting ahead or fitting in. Or for men, for that matter, need to tear others down to rise, need to condemn women for wanting axe and slave after it themselves, and use everything as a penis metaphor to make any conversation. Or for any other group to which we attribute trends based on a suitably large amount of them having that vague direction and despite a suitably large amount of them not having it.
Which is absolutely true (well the first part, the second part not so sure). It doesn't detract from my point that the fact that (citation lost in my internet history) women often communicate on sometimes as much as 7 levels while men stick to 3, which is a clear difference.

I have a black friend who agrees with me that black people are just people and people need to give up on racial tension. I had a black friend who disagreed and said different races should stay separate becauE they were inherently incompatible. I understand the view but know it's not objective and tells me more about his upbringing that it does about all people of African descent.got me there

You have here several women saying that women are just people, and several women saying women are Different From Men and are irreconcilable with your idea of logic and sense. Does that tell you about half of the human population stretching back for millennia, or does that tell you about the biases of women you know?

I telss me not only men, but some women as well share my specific kind of bias. Ofcourse, should I make it scientific, I should ask about 3 billion people (give or take)

I don't understand this paragraph. It's true that there is a use to this discussion but it doesn't have a use?

The direct use of this discussion (at least in the way it's phrased) it has no direct use, the use it has is more of a side effect really, but not the goal of the discussion itself

Aye. There are no absolutes. Not even this one.

harr harr :smallamused:

Partly from confirmation bias. It's easy to see women who don't act like women as the outliers. Especially because of, say, us; I know. Key part of my emotional happiness is sticking to some stereo- or arche-types as I know and understand them, and some of my enjoyment of hosiery and heels is coded into this. Or wait, reverse that. Or.. Well, you get it.

Well, generalization is a useful tool to make the world a lot less complicated (and brainwracking).

Kalmageddon

2014-02-13, 07:57 AM

No, I'm not, just that I make the comparison doesn't mean I don't respect people who are actually able to do things like that... I mean, try listening along to a a group of women talking, odds are you pick up about 40% fo what's actually discussed.

I have the feeling you don't watch Metalocalypse... :smalltongue:
My previous post was intended as a joke about the "going to a death metal concert on a minefield", which sounds exactly like the kind of things Klokateers (Dethklok's fans) would do to attend at a concert, at least in the reality of the show... And that you implied to be a bad thing.
Sort of a niche reference I guess.

Eldariel

2014-02-13, 08:03 AM

I telss me not only men, but some women as well share my specific kind of bias. Ofcourse, should I make it scientific, I should ask about 3 billion people (give or take)

Well no, there's this concept called sampling and related statistical techniques. You certainly don't need to ask every member of a group to create a scientifically valid sample: you just need a representative sample. Whether through randomization plus sample size or engineering, it should be perfectly valid if done right. Of course, we're still talking of a massive, global undertaking so it wouldn't be easy if trying to do a typology of the whole female/male population on this planet.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 08:19 AM

There are two* different ways of treating exchange that seem to be entrenched in the human mind - one is Communal Exchange and the other is Equality Matching. Communal Exchange is what we usually have with families and close friends, we give without expecting anything in return. The other is Equality Matching, we give and expect something of more than less equal value in return. Let's look at the situation from the view of the two models. If we go dutch, there's strictly speaking no exchange.

In Communal Exchange, the party who pays the tab treats the other person as a close friend or member of the family. In a dating context I think this is an invitation to become close friend/family.

In Equality Matching, the party who pays the tab expects something in return. In a dating context I think this can be treated three ways, either as saying "I think your company is enough to compensate." The other way is saying "I expect a favor (typically sex) in return." Or, crucially, it can mean "and I expect you to pay next time."

Now, it makes me vulnerable if I come right out and say which of these models one thinks applies. If I say nothing then I will have plausible deniability - if my hopes for nookie are dashed then I can leave you with the impression that I expected you to buy next time, and that that was the plan along. Even if we both know there's not going to be a next time. And humans will go a long way to save face. Hence the secrecy.

*there are more but only these two seem to be relevant

Socratov

2014-02-13, 08:20 AM

I have the feeling you don't watch Metalocalypse... :smalltongue:
My previous post was intended as a joke about the "going to a death metal concert on a minefield", which sounds exactly like the kind of things Klokateers (Dethklok's fans) would do to attend at a concert, at least in the reality of the show... And that you implied to be a bad thing.
Sort of a niche reference I guess.
I have seen it (not all of it, but about 10 episodes or so). I was playing it straight (as Tropers woudl say), also intended funny...

Well no, there's this concept called sampling and related statistical techniques. You certainly don't need to ask every member of a group to create a scientifically valid sample: you just need a representative sample. Whether through randomization plus sample size or engineering, it should be perfectly valid if done right. Of course, we're still talking of a massive, global undertaking so it wouldn't be easy if trying to do a typology of the whole female/male population on this planet.

This is exactly the point, since it has been argued that no representative sample can be created (or so it's argued) since each woman is notably different...

FinnLassie

2014-02-13, 08:28 AM

I mean, try listening along to a a group of women talking, odds are you pick up about 40% fo what's actually discussed.

:smallconfused:

Uhh... That applies to both men and women, and depends on what exactly these people are talking about. I mean hell, I miss about 90% of what the majority my coursemates say (about 130+ of us, about less than 10 of those guys) purely because we are on different planets. Well, often I have no idea what the guys talk about either... But when I go to my own comfort zone (i.e. all the friends I've gained from the RPG club) I'm fully capable of following the conversation, unless it's an area of sci-fi/fantasy I'm not familiar with.

Astrella

2014-02-13, 08:29 AM

No, I'm not, just that I make the comparison doesn't mean I don't respect people who are actually able to do things like that... I mean, try listening along to a a group of women talking, odds are you pick up about 40% fo what's actually discussed.
It's called a paradox, part of a literary styles I can pretty much identify a trend, but that might be just me...

Maybe you're just a bad listener. :smallwink:

Socratov

2014-02-13, 08:35 AM

Maybe you're just a bad listener. :smallwink:

entirely possible, woudln't rule it out, need more data despite evidence of the opposite :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel

2014-02-13, 09:16 AM

This is exactly the point, since it has been argued that no representative sample can be created (or so it's argued) since each woman is notably different...

Unique doesn't mean unmeasurable. The nature of large samples is that the extremes even each other out and you get averages even if they don't fit any particular individual.

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 09:17 AM

Which is absolutely true (well the first part, the second part not so sure). It doesn't detract from my point that the fact that (citation lost in my internet history) women often communicate on sometimes as much as 7 levels while men stick to 3, which is a clear difference.

My equally uncited source shows that to be from the same nonsense as "women can't think math clearly" and "women are from Venus and men are from Mars", all of which are popular ideas with absolutely no rational scientific backing. And have actually been disproven.

Well, generalization is a useful tool to make the world a lot less complicated (and brainwracking).

Not in a conversation of nuance about deconstruction and analysis it's not.

Same with using "literary techniques". You remove yourself from discussion and try to turn your partners into an audience, placing yourself above them. A literary technique which relies on rhetoric to convey something through deception cannot work half as well as speaking clearly in discussion and debate.

There are two* different ways of treating exchange that seem to be entrenched in the human mind - one is Communal Exchange and the other is Equality Matching. Communal Exchange is what we usually have with families and close friends, we give without expecting anything in return. The other is Equality Matching, we give and expect something of more than less equal value in return. Let's look at the situation from the view of the two models. If we go dutch, there's strictly speaking no exchange.

In Communal Exchange, the party who pays the tab treats the other person as a close friend or member of the family. In a dating context I think this is an invitation to become close friend/family.

In Equality Matching, the party who pays the tab expects something in return. In a dating context I think this can be treated three ways, either as saying "I think your company is enough to compensate." The other way is saying "I expect a favor (typically sex) in return." Or, crucially, it can mean "and I expect you to pay next time."

Now, it makes me vulnerable if I come right out and say which of these models one thinks applies. If I say nothing then I will have plausible deniability - if my hopes for nookie are dashed then I can leave you with the impression that I expected you to buy next time, and that that was the plan along. Even if we both know there's not going to be a next time. And humans will go a long way to save face. Hence the secrecy.

*there are more but only these two seem to be relevant

Interesting.

Data shows that being upfront about ulterior motives does not actually sour things so clearly though. But then, I'm an American and live near bars.

This is exactly the point, since it has been argued that no representative sample can be created (or so it's argued) since each woman is notably different...

Luna's teats, Please, tell me you see what's wrong with this and are just playing Debate Club again.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 09:53 AM

My equally uncited source shows that to be from the same nonsense as "women can't think math clearly" and "women are from Venus and men are from Mars", all of which are popular ideas with absolutely no rational scientific backing. And have actually been disproven.

currently working through Baslow & Rubensfeld to find the passages, hold on, also, when did I suggest above bolded title to be valid?

Not in a conversation of nuance about deconstruction and analysis it's not.
Then please tell me what page 5 was about then, since the analysis and deconstruction part was a bit mangled imo

Same with using "literary techniques". You remove yourself from discussion and try to turn your partners into an audience, placing yourself above them. A literary technique which relies on rhetoric to convey something through deception cannot work half as well as speaking clearly in discussion and debate.
In absence of voice chat or face to face discussions, literary techniques are all we have to inflect meaning and use meta communication. Is is wrong of me to use it?

Luna's teats, Please, tell me you see what's wrong with this and are just playing Debate Club again.
So even when I (slightly tongue in cheek, with a side order of sarcasm) agree with you it's wrong? I'm only saying that creating a sample size for something people have often expressed to be as personal and diverse as can be, for the purposes of using (basic) statistics to generate answers is neither very productive, nor will it solve anything.

But hey, I'm Dutch, so according to an american reporter we apparently do statistics differently. Must be my fault. (By the way this is meant to be very sarcastic)

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 09:54 AM

Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert.

The thing is, if we are convinced that we cannot do a thing we succeed less well at it. There's ample evidence from psychology for that. For instance, women who are told that the math test they're about to be given is especially difficult for women perform less well than women who are given a neutral speech. So maybe you're not trying as hard as you would if you had other beliefs?

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-13, 09:54 AM

"Other crimes happen too" is not relevant unless and until you recontextualize everything into a general sexual assault discussion. Zorg even acknowledged this; yes, there are other and related issues. No, they don't apply in this worrisome context.

Saying things like "one in four woman have been raped" does turn it into general sexual assault discussion, though, since that statistic does not discriminate between women who were raped when they rejected an offer, and women who were raped when doing something entirely else.

I'm willing to claim the chances of a woman being raped as a result of rejected offer are actually a tiny fraction of the chance of being raped overall. The only thing that stops me from counting that chance is that I don't have statistics at hand of how many men an average woman has to reject during her lifetime. I can give estimates, though.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 10:10 AM

The thing is, if we are convinced that we cannot do a thing we succeed less well at it. There's ample evidence from psychology for that. For instance, women who are told that the math test they're about to be given is especially difficult for women perform less well than women who are given a neutral speech. So maybe you're not trying as hard as you would if you had other beliefs?

well, I once tested this myself (before I had such notions), thinking that the theory was bull**** becuase we all use the same mouth to speak and the same body to convey body language through, right? Wrong! Notonly did I manage to miss the point in a consistent manner, I also missed a lot of information (I later reconvened with one of the girls in the group). Out of the issues I picked up on about 3/10 correctly, missing about 25% of all topics discussed, Also I excluded things like noise, being tired and other factors by making sure they were 'controlled' (by which I mean I wasn't tired and could hear things without problems)

Oh, and Even though I was mistaken about the number of levels, I was right about the inherent gap between communication styles and methods of relaying information between men and women (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977178069) (sources going back to 2001, paper published 2007)

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 10:24 AM

well, I once tested this myself (before I had such notions), thinking that the theory was bull**** becuase we all use the same mouth to speak and the same body to convey body language through, right? Wrong! Notonly did I manage to miss the point in a consistent manner, I also missed a lot of information (I later reconvened with one of the girls in the group). Out of the issues I picked up on about 3/10 correctly, missing about 25% of all topics discussed, Also I excluded things like noise, being tired and other factors by making sure they were 'controlled' (by which I mean I wasn't tired and could hear things without problems)

Well, with n=1 you must be right.

Oh, and Even though I was mistaken about the number of levels, I was right about the inherent gap between communication styles and methods of relaying information between men and women (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977178069) (sources going back to 2001, paper published 2007)

Different ways of communicating does not mean loss of comprehension.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 10:26 AM

Well, with n=1 you must be right.

Different ways of communicating does not mean loss of comprehension.

True, it helps a lot though :smallwink:

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 10:47 AM

currently working through Baslow & Rubensfeld to find the passages, hold on, also, when did I suggest above bolded title to be valid?

You did not suggest the 'title' to be valid, I said the statement that women convey 134% more information at all times is as valid as women are bad at math.

Then please tell me what page 5 was about then, since the analysis and deconstruction part was a bit mangled imo

Sure. Also, please use line breaks. When quoting you, this and the next line were one sentence.

In absence of voice chat or face to face discussions, literary techniques are all we have to inflect meaning and use meta communication. Is is wrong of me to use it?

In the absence of voice or face chat, plainly speaking the truth in a direct manner is more effective at conveying factual information than making a statement which contradicts itself and hoping you've laid the groundwork for it to be taken as a technique commonly used in fiction and hoping for the best.

So even when I (slightly tongue in cheek, with a side order of sarcasm) agree with you it's wrong?

So the answer to my asking if this is sarcasm is to be surprised that your sarcasm was met with questions after the validity of your speaking method has already been questioned, attribute a faulty premise to the inquirer and appeal to the audience?

Why don't you just say "I was being sarcastic"? You're not going to get very far by over reacting.

I'm only saying that creating a sample size for something people have often expressed to be as personal and diverse as can be, for the purposes of using (basic) statistics to generate answers is neither very productive, nor will it solve anything.

You said you could not put together a sample of women to test a hypothesis because the failure of the hypothesis would invalidate the premise of the selection. This implies that what you meant was that you wanted to gather a sample of women who feel men don't communicate clearly and then find what percent of them don't feel like men communicate clearly (this would be 100%, by the way, because of sampling bias), or of you were doing real science you could find out what percentage of women who feel they communicate better than men actual do.

None of that touches on whether women as a sex or gender share a single trait, which could be tested by sampling a large number of women, not women who all feel a certain way.

Saying things like "one in four woman have been raped" does turn it into general sexual assault discussion, though, since that statistic does not discriminate between women who were raped when they rejected an offer, and women who were raped when doing something entirely else.

Ah, see, I view that as an ancillary supporting point but not the main thrust.

X% of women have been raped (establishes that this is a big problem).
Women are indeed raped due to Y circumstance (establishes why the prior line is relevant)
Given that line one proves women are victimized often and line two provides a reason a certain behavior can lead to line one happening, caution is warranted.

At no point does 'men are also raped' support or refute anything in the conversation it's true but not relevant except as a way of saying so much stuff happens in so many ways that we shouldn't bother looming at anything at all.

I also think averaging rejections would be a very bad idea. It's like, people in olden times lived a long time (70+) but babies died so frequently that the average life expectancy was 30, and people now think adults lived to 30 and then died.

Oh, and Even though I was mistaken about the number of levels, I was right about the inherent gap between communication styles and methods of relaying information between men and women (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977178069) (sources going back to 2001, paper published 2007)

Uh, No? This says that women have more communication methods, not that they transmit more raw data in any unit of time, and this does not answer whether this is socialized or somehow inherent to the female gender.

This miscomunique right here is why people roll their eyes at "science has proven".

Frozen_Feet

2014-02-13, 10:50 AM

Socratov

2014-02-13, 11:09 AM

You did not suggest the 'title' to be valid, I said the statement that women convey 134% more information at all times is as valid as women are bad at math.

Sure. Also, please use line breaks. When quoting you, this and the next line were one sentence.

In the absence of voice or face chat, plainly speaking the truth in a direct manner is more effective at conveying factual information than making a statement which contradicts itself and hoping you've laid the groundwork for it to be taken as a technique commonly used in fiction and hoping for the best.

So the answer to my asking if this is sarcasm is to be surprised that your sarcasm was met with questions after the validity of your speaking method has already been questioned, attribute a faulty premise to the inquirer and appeal to the audience?

Why don't you just say "I was being sarcastic"? You're not going to get very far by over reacting.

You said you could not put together a sample of women to test a hypothesis because the failure of the hypothesis would invalidate the premise of the selection. This implies that what you meant was that you wanted to gather a sample of women who feel men don't communicate clearly and then find what percent of them don't feel like men communicate clearly (this would be 100%, by the way, because of sampling bias), or of you were doing real science you could find out what percentage of women who feel they communicate better than men actual do.

None of that touches on whether women as a sex or gender share a single trait, which could be tested by sampling a large number of women, not women who all feel a certain way.

Ah, see, I view that as an ancillary supporting point but not the main thrust.

X% of women have been raped (establishes that this is a big problem).
Women are indeed raped due to Y circumstance (establishes why the prior line is relevant)
Given that line one proves women are victimized often and line two provides a reason a certain behavior can lead to line one happening, caution is warranted.

At no point does 'men are also raped' support or refute anything in the conversation it's true but not relevant except as a way of saying so much stuff happens in so many ways that we shouldn't bother looming at anything at all.

I also think averaging rejections would be a very bad idea. It's like, people in olden times lived a long time (70+) but babies died so frequently that the average life expectancy was 30, and people now think adults lived to 30 and then died.

Uh, No? This says that women have more communication methods, not that they transmit more raw data in any unit of time, and this does not answer whether this is socialized or somehow inherent to the female gender.

This miscomunique right here is why people roll their eyes at "science has proven".

Please note that I never said that women communicate more then 100% of information, it's spread over different and more ways, whereas men might convey the same percentage of their communication through less (and other) ways. I never meant different amounts, just different channels. I also think it's rather restricting to assume literary stylistic writing is only used in fiction, and that in all other works only plain writing is used. Stylistic elements play just an equal part in showing the meaning behind words as the semantics of the words used themselves. Actually, the only place in which stylistic elements are (mostly) absent is maths. Even then one can play around with substitution and simplifications of equations.

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 11:37 AM

I also love how in this thread assumptions and arguments are made (almost) exclusively in binary fashion, despite people's attempts to mitigate it's binaryness :smallamused:

Now you're just making me wonder how you would rather I have phrased everything I wrote without just kowtowing to anyone who disagreed with me. :smallconfused:

Zorg

2014-02-13, 11:40 AM

But if we're going to talk about what is polite, then we have to discuss not just what people do, but what people should do. Just because women are aversive towards men because they fear rape doesn't necessarily mean that's what they should be doing.

Women suffer a disproportionately large share of sexual violence on a gender to gender scale.
+
This violence is usually perpetrated by someone known to the attacker
=
Some women are wary of men in social situations, and dislike actions they see as possible "red flags" of further negative, possibly dangerous traits.

Also add in to that that men suffer more violence overall, generally from other men, for some reason- and yet it's women who need to change what they're doing? I'm afraid I don't see it.

And besides, rather than saying that what people are doing to make themselves feel safer is wrong and they should stop, why not say what you think people should be doing instead?
Also keep in mind that "don't feel afraid because men don't" is a) not actually a solution to the problem and b) not accurate as a few posters before illustrated.

And in regards to "it's not all men":

The reason I've stopped saying “most men/some white people/many straight people do X oppressive activity” is because if you’re a member of those groups, I want you to sit there and think, “do I do X? am I a part of that? am I an active part of the problem?”
If I say that only most or some people in those groups participates in X, that’s letting you off the hook! That means that you’re not asked to think about your actions and choices!
And besides, even if you yourself aren't doing X, chances are you know at least five people who do. And I want you to think about them too.

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 11:50 AM

Are you disrespecting Dethklok fans? :smallmad:

I saw what you did there. :smallwink:

It's funny how you talk against binary and then make an absolute statement. There is no "women's social interaction", there is stuff that is socialized yes, but in the end every woman will interact in a different fashion. I don't get where this idea comes from that entire genders act in the same way. >.>

Aren't those just from norms, normative behavior, and common gendered socialization and expectations?

Well no, there's this concept called sampling and related statistical techniques. You certainly don't need to ask every member of a group to create a scientifically valid sample: you just need a representative sample. Whether through randomization plus sample size or engineering, it should be perfectly valid if done right. Of course, we're still talking of a massive, global undertaking so it wouldn't be easy if trying to do a typology of the whole female/male population on this planet.

We'd only really be interested in the individual cultural millieus themselves though, since accounting for all of the world's different cultures would be generalization to the point of uselessness. Specifically the Western one, more specifically either the North American or European branch, most specifically the general divisions of Europe or the specific region of North America.

Astrella

2014-02-13, 12:02 PM

@Zorg; that quote, so much. You have to actively investigate your own behaviour too, you can't just dismiss an issue with "I'm not like that".

Zorg

2014-02-13, 12:13 PM

Indeed, and a follow up quote from one of HoNY's subjects (http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/68228771159/its-for-my-queer-and-feminist-comparative):

http://25.media.tumblr.com/69250ab58c114c03e472a550d05dd8e5/tumblr_mwwklv3lSh1qggwnvo1_500.jpg

"It’s for my Queer and Feminist Comparative Literature Theory class."
“Let me write that down…”

“I took it more for the teacher than the class. My school was all-male until the sixties, and she was one of the first teachers at the women’s college. She’s really respected.”

“So what’s one important thing she’s taught you?”

“… about how it’s important for feminists to evaluate everyday occurrences. How even routine personal interactions are political. Everything is significant, and even little things have meaning.”

“Is it possible to see too much meaning in little things?”

“Well, there does seem to be some people who go around looking for things to be angry about. But if the alternative is to be desensitized to how small things affect us, I think it’s better to be overly sensitive.”

Eldariel

2014-02-13, 12:26 PM

We'd only really be interested in the individual cultural millieus themselves though, since accounting for all of the world's different cultures would be generalization to the point of uselessness. Specifically the Western one, more specifically either the North American or European branch, most specifically the general division of Europe or the specific region of North America.

Europe in itself is extremely heterogeneous in this sense. I don't know how it works in America, but I know that the North Eastern Europe, North-Western Europe & Scandinavia, Mediterranean Europe, Balkans and many smaller isolated areas have completely different cultures on what's acceptable in e.g. courting or a relationship.

However, I think getting percentages on what kinds behavior is generally considered acceptable in each area would, I suppose, paint a useful picture. But yeah, as an example related to this topic, I was reading the Go Dutch Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_dutch) earlier and even that paints an interesting picture on the topic with such a narrow focus.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 12:27 PM

Some thoughts:
1-There are those who are uncomfortable around the opposite sex. If you are making someone uncomfortable, chances are you are doing it wrong. Unfortunately, this extents to pleasantries or even gallant behavior such as holding a door or buying someone a meal.

2-Obligation does funny things to people. And there is a very real fear among women (those that I have met in person and those that I have met on the internet) that if a man buys a woman a meal, the man may get the wrong idea about obligation. It's not that the man might force himself upon the woman (though that fear does exist as well), more of the women I've spoke with just don't like the idea of the obligation being there at all. The real good guys out there know that just because we buy you dinner doesn't mean there is an obligation. Ladies, I know you don't have much reason to, but the benefit of the doubt would be awesome in this respect.

3-The fake white knights. You often hear about these guys when they get friend-zoned. Often their arguments for why they should take it to the next level end up sounding sterotyped like "I did all these nice things for you, I want to take our relationship further." How to tell the fake ones from the real ones? The real ones will ultimately respect your feelings. They might not like hearing a rejection, but when you say no, it's no, they get it. They'll still TRY to cite the good things they've done, chances are they will ask to try for 'one date' but they WILL take no or 'maybe later' for an answer. But they have real feelings that have probably been bottled up for a while, and they've been bottled up for all the same reasons you might want to turn them down--you don't want to risk losing the friendship. If you are indeed friends, those feelings matter just as much as yours, and they are just as difficult to cope with sometimes. Again, benefit of the doubt is awesome here.

Their admittance of their feelings to you isn't a betrayal of what you know of the person. Yes, it changes things. Yes, you might not be as comfortable around this person as before, at least not for a while. That is perfectly 100% fine. Just... try not to crush the poor fellow's heart like an ant. He might even get a little mad that you don't feel what he feels, or possibly hurt that you didn't notice the (subtle/not so subtle) hints he may have dropped. His feelings are hurt, give a bit of slack here. Don't jump to the conclussion that he only did nice things to get something out of you. Please, please don't make the accusation that every good deed had a nefarious purpose behind it. This seriously hurts more than saying no, it is a horrible conclussion to jump to.

The fake white knights? They won't take no. They will be pushy. They probably won't really care if you think the good deeds were villainous deeds in disguise. Heck, they might even be a bit smug about how their clever plan came together. These are the guys you have every right in being worried about. These are the guys who have given the real white knights a terrible name.
But the surefire way to recognize a fake white knight?
"Don't you feel all this sexual tension?"
"You just want a bad boy to complain about."
"You're only saying no because of my (looks, height, weight, or some other shallow detail)"
These are phrases designed to turn you into the villain. Often trying to infer a certain stereotype or generalization about women. These are the sure signs of someone trying to appear nice, courteous, chivalrous (that word doesn't mean what people think it means but I'll leave it here anyway), someone that sees you as a person rather than an object. these phrases only exist to create false obligation, to create a position of moral superiority, trying to sharply contrast his 'nice guy' to the girls falsely infered flaws.

What annoys me greatly is when I see perfectly nice people doing perfectly nice things and being villainized for it because of a false inference caused by the fake white knights. Unfortunately there a great deal many people who have been friendzoned and have since taken to the internet, not only (falsely) villainizing women while extolling their (false) virtues, but often making generalizations and even statements regarding obligation towards specific activities.

Seinfeld made an episode around how a woman inviting a man into her home for coffee after a date was in invitation to much much more. Hilarity ensued when this theory was tested and proven wrong. Sadly, other sitcoms and even romcoms have managed to screw this up. Thats right, Seinfeld got it right, others got it very much wrong. Go figure.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 12:29 PM

Everything in interpersonal interactions is significant?

...

No. That's insanity.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 12:32 PM

Everything in interpersonal interactions is significant?
No. That's insanity.There are degrees of significance. It's a spectrum, not a binary system.
There is much more than 'non-significant' and '[insert hyperbolized reaction]'

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 12:33 PM

Just to peeve everyone who hates probabilities:

Let's take it as true that one in four, or 25%, of women have been raped in their lifetime. Lifetime, in this case, is defined as 3650 days, so roughly 10 years. If these rapes were independent events, this would mean the chance of being raped on any given day is ~0.00788%. Further, let's assume every woman meets 1 man per day on average, so this 0.00788% chance is the bare minimum. If a woman meets more than one man in a day, the chance is is multiplied accordingly.

This is what the "any man is a potential rapist" looks like from a mathematical angle. That is the chance any given random man will decide to rape you today.

You've made some mistakes there, namely in leaving out that we aren't talking about every man, we are saying that women are raped by people they know, and women are raped by men, and women are raped by expectant favor-givers, and that if someone is all three then their odds are calculated per category instead of just once.

You're simply obfuscating the intended point by adding junk data.

Now, let's count. In a small country of ~5000000 people like which I live in, of which around half or 2500000 are women, that rate would mean around 197 women raped on an average day. In an average year, it would mean 70921 women raped.

So wait, world statistics with weighting don't hold up in one country? Unpossible!

But even with these estimates, it should be glaringly obvious that "all men are potential rapists" is not a sufficient excuse for being rude or aversive towards men.

Irrelevant data. "Being rude or aversive towards men" has not ever been a point anyone made except as a strawman attributed to one side by the other. Do not be rude or aversive does not mean anything to the statement 'I don't like people paying for my dinner because I don't want them feeling I owe them enough to commit aggravated assault".

You've proved a year has ~365 days and are using that to prove October is the best month. Your proof doesn't have anything to do with our argument. And the more people try to refute your point out of habit or nature, the more it gives the false sense that this is indeed relevant.

EDIT: SiuS, if you think the violence men face is irrelevant, you have entirely forgotten what I was asking. I was asking why men don't have similar trust issues. Your reply (the one with any substance) is that "yes they do, they just handle it differently".

And that's still my reply. Demonstrate men do not have trust issues and then somehow relate that to a sense of obligation during social dates and we'll talk. Prove correlation.

Please note that I never said that women communicate more then 100% of information, it's spread over different and more ways, whereas men might convey the same percentage of their communication through less (and other) ways.

You said;
"Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert."

And then;

"Which is absolutely true (well the first part, the second part not so sure). It doesn't detract from my point that the fact that (citation lost in my internet history) women often communicate on sometimes as much as 7 levels while men stick to 3, which is a clear difference."

Which indicates pretty clearly that you have trouble understanding women, you say it is because their communication is on too many different levels, and that this communication difference is universal, but so too is the difficulty understanding women.

You are correct in that you did not mention percentages; 7 is 2.34 times 3, or approximately one hundred and thirty three point three etc. Percent more. I misremembered but I feel it still illustrates making a point without data to back it up, without even data that is related in any meaningful way.

Yes, I recognize the irony.

I never meant different amounts, just different channels. I also think it's rather restricting to assume literary stylistic writing is only used in fiction, and that in all other works only plain writing is used

You're going to have to accept that brevity is used when the main thrust of a point is being made I'm afraid. It rather unrealistic to talk about using advanced literary techniques to make a point and miss basic conversational speaking.

And in regards to "it's not all men":

I actually know one! Left three women behind, none of whom know each other, who are only connected by having dated this one guy. He admitted to one of them even, trying to explain why half his old crowd now despise him and asking for understanding why it wasn't his fault.
For some people it's "you might know five", for me it's "one comes to you asking for protection". :smallsigh:

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 12:34 PM

There are degrees of significance. It's a spectrum, not a binary system.
There is much more than 'non-significant' and '[insert hyperbolized reaction]'

So if I meet you and have green socks, that's significant? How?

Karoht

2014-02-13, 12:44 PM

So if I meet you and have green socks, that's significant? How?How is this reply to my comment significant to me? Since it falls into the hyperbolized end of the spectrum while at the same time also falling into the 'non-relevant (to the conversation at hand)' end of the spectrum, I'm inclined to believe you are intending towards an absurd example, as such I'm not really inclined to try and formulate an answer towards an absurdity. But since I have nothing better to do right now...

You've given no context whatsoever. Details are meaningless without context.
If you meet me and I wear green socks and nothing else then the detail of the socks may or may not be all that significant in context. Perhaps the selection of green is a specific expression of myself and my preferences.
Are the socks bright green? Neon green? Dark green? Preference to bright/dark colors can be significant. Dark colors tend to (but not always) indicate a more introverted personality while bright colors tend to indicate extroverted personalities. Am I wearing bright green socks but otherwise dark or muted clothing? Perhaps it means I'm just disorganized or I don't care about wearing matching clothing.

Like I said, significance is a spectrum, not a binary set of answers.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 12:49 PM

You say everything, I take it that you mean everything. And when I try to come up with a counter-example of course I will come with something that is less obvious. I mean, if I had written "how is me wearing a KKK fan club pin significant?" that would be a little too easy.

"May or may not be all that significant"? But it will be significant?

I'll need your definition of significant.

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 01:01 PM

Europe in itself is extremely heterogeneous in this sense. I don't know how it works in America, but I know that the North Eastern Europe, North-Western Europe & Scandinavia, Mediterranean Europe, Balkans and many smaller isolated areas have completely different cultures on what's acceptable in e.g. courting or a relationship.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at, sorry. I dropped an s in divisions there, though... I probably should've just referred to that level as regional.

Though there's probably some existential questions about where the bounds of Western Culture exist. XD

However, I think getting percentages on what kinds behavior is generally considered acceptable in each area would, I suppose, paint a useful picture. But yeah, as an example related to this topic, I was reading the Go Dutch Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_dutch) earlier and even that paints an interesting picture on the topic with such a narrow focus.

Agreed. :smallsmile:

Everything in interpersonal interactions is significant?

...

No. That's insanity.

Quick, someone get a picture of that guy from the History Channel with the caption "Aliens" and substitute in "Humans" instead!

Zorg

2014-02-13, 01:08 PM

The colour of someone's socks isn't an interpersonal interaction - it's a passive observation. What you say to them or someone else about their socks is interaction.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 01:09 PM

I'll need your definition of significant."Worthy of notice, observation, rememberance, possibly analysis."
And often it is the tiny details that tell us the most.

Words have far more context and weight than socks. Socks tend not to hurt people very often. Words hurt people all the time. As such words are often ascribed much higher significance, but as I said before, it is still a scale and not a binary system. Significance falls under more than 'is' or 'is not'

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 01:14 PM

warty goblin

2014-02-13, 01:24 PM

@Zorg; that quote, so much. You have to actively investigate your own behaviour too, you can't just dismiss an issue with "I'm not like that".
A person should think about their own behavior, yes. I'm not sure how that dictum implies it's now OK to accuse large portions of the world's population simply because they might be guilty of something.

Maybe this is just me, but I've never really been a fan of exercises in collective accusation. If people are supposed to be considered as individuals, then maybe leveling wide-bore charges against entire swaths of society based on their gender isn't a thing we should do anymore? Because that's certainly what that quote seems to be doing, at least to me. Maybe I'm misreading it though.

Aedilred

2014-02-13, 01:33 PM

A person should think about their own behavior, yes. I'm not sure how that dictum implies it's now OK to accuse large portions of the world's population simply because they might be guilty of something.

Maybe this is just me, but I've never really been a fan of exercises in collective accusation. If people are supposed to be considered as individuals, then maybe leveling wide-bore charges against entire swaths of society based on their gender isn't a thing we should do anymore? Because that's certainly what that quote seems to be doing, at least to me. Maybe I'm misreading it though.
I found myself incapable of constructing a response to the post to which this refers, or at least one that wouldn't have appeared completely unreasonable, so I shall settle for nailing my colours to this post instead.

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 01:33 PM

@Zorg; that quote, so much. You have to actively investigate your own behaviour too, you can't just dismiss an issue with "I'm not like that".

That's not really what happens when people feel falsely accused though as far as I've ever been aware. It just results in pushback and less desire to listen to the speaker.

Sort of like what happened with Andrea Dworkin and whatever secret she took to her grave behind arguing that het sex is rape. She wasn't exactly winning prizes for it to begin with, but after that, she couldn't evade having that spectre casting its shadow over her and everything she touched, IIRC.

Indeed, and a follow up quote from one of HoNY's subjects (http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/68228771159/its-for-my-queer-and-feminist-comparative):

http://25.media.tumblr.com/69250ab58c114c03e472a550d05dd8e5/tumblr_mwwklv3lSh1qggwnvo1_500.jpg

Ahh, good old false dichotomies.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 01:35 PM

Studies over the past two decades on lesbian sexual violence show a range from a low of five percent to a high of 57 percent of respondents claiming they had experienced attempted or completed sexual assault or rape by another woman, with most studies finding rates of over 30 percent (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Duncan, 1990; Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montagne & Reyes, 1991; Loulan, 1988; Renzetti, 1992; Sloan & Edmond, 1996; Waldner-Haugrud & Gratch, 1997; Waterman, Dawson & Bologna, 1989).

Reference (http://www.loribgirshick.com/articles-on-lgbt-interpersonal-violence.html)

Therefore, all lesbians must be suspected of being rapists until proven otherwise. They must examine their behavior in this regard on a regular basis.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 01:40 PM

**** it. This is not relevant to the original question and I'll just make enemies.

Let's just say that I think a lot of interpersonal stuff is so insignificant as to indistinguishible from not significant. And that I suspect that you don't even think about those.Correct. It's when something something with a higher significance comes along and we DON'T think about it (because we take it for granted, because common media tells us that 'this is the way it is,' because we derp out for a moment, etc) that there is a problem.
Again, spectrum of significance.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 01:48 PM

Knaight

2014-02-13, 02:10 PM

A person should think about their own behavior, yes. I'm not sure how that dictum implies it's now OK to accuse large portions of the world's population simply because they might be guilty of something.

Nobody is being accused of anything. The closest anyone is coming to an accusation is things to the effect of "Population X contains violent population Y, and the XY overlap is not completely visible to an outside observer, and thus it is worth acknowledging that there is some possibility that a member of population X is also a member of population Y, particularly if they display behaviors more common to the XY overlap."

There's been kind of a lot of equivocation in this thread between treating someone like they could possibly be a rapist as you don't know, and treating them like you know they are. Handling methods for scenario one are treated as if they implicitly accuse scenario 2. This is nonsense. Said handling methods have pretty much involved being cautious when interacting with people romantically. Scenario 2 handling methods are closer to avoidance to the full extent possible, warning others about the person in question, and possibly involving law enforcement. Nobody is advocating for any of these, because nobody is actually accused of anything.

Again, the analogy about the bar - There's a higher probability of armed violence near there than elsewhere in town, so I avoid it late at night. That is a scenario 1 handling method, that accuses nobody. A scenario 2 method would be if I knew that there was a knife fight outside said bar, right now - it looks a lot less like avoiding the area and a lot more like calling 911.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 02:13 PM

But then it's a completely useless statement. A useful statement would us something about how to classify things on this spectrum. Just saying that something falls on a spectrum is... pointless. Saying something like "even things that seem insignificant may be very important" is not. It's a deepity. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity)
And here I thought you were dropping it.

SEEM insignificant and are of ACTUAL significance are two different things. You are aware of this right?

Here's a spectrum for you.
Not Significant -- Somewhat Significant -- Significant -- High Significance -- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING HYPERBOLE HYPERBOLE

Just saying that something falls on a spectrum is... pointless. It isn't when you have a context to work with. Namely me pointing out that because someone called something significant doesn't mean it instantly goes to a hyperbolized (over) reaction. There are degrees of significance as there are degrees of reaction.

Socratov

2014-02-13, 02:18 PM

snip
You said;
"Anyway, on to (more) interesting points: Well, forgive me for being biased: I can understand guys just fine, though girls are a mystery to me, a couple of female friends of mine wholeheartedly agree with me saying women's social interaction is like traversing a minefield during a deathmetal concert."

And then;

"Which is absolutely true (well the first part, the second part not so sure). It doesn't detract from my point that the fact that (citation lost in my internet history) women often communicate on sometimes as much as 7 levels while men stick to 3, which is a clear difference."

Which indicates pretty clearly that you have trouble understanding women,correct when it comes to subtle things like signs and the like which seem to carry infomration important to the conversation
you say it is because their communication is on too manyI said many, not too many, risking to sound nitpicky, those 2 carry different meanings (most notbaly an opinion)
different levels, and that this communication difference is universal, but so too is the difficulty understanding women.

You are correct in that you did not mention percentages; 7 is 2.34 times 3, or approximately one hundred and thirty three point three etc. Percent more. I misremembered but I feel it still illustrates making a point without data to back it up, without even data that is related in any meaningful way.
I never said the communication was equally distributed between those levels and that comparable levels between men and women (i.e. the ones they have in common) carry the same amount of information. The fact that you assumed those 2 factors leads to this difference in information. To clarify my point with a parable: instead of recording a siong by a band through 3 channels of the mixing board, some use 7. Same amount of music, different spread between channels. [/quote]
Yes, I recognize the irony.

You're going to have to accept that brevity is used when the main thrust of a point is being made I'm afraid. It rather unrealistic to talk about using advanced literary techniques to make a point and miss basic conversational speaking.

snip again[/QUOTE]

I hardly think a hyperbole and sarcasm are advanced literary techniques, especially if they are part of everyday writing/texting/facebook/twitter/e.a. They even find their way to the spoken word to add colour. I can accept brevity but at some point brevity will stand in the way of a properly decoded message (I myself am frequently guilty of this one), at which point brevity is actually harmful to a conversation. Anyway, I propose we drag our conversation back on topic since we seem to have drifted from going dutch on dates to linguistics. :smallbiggrin:

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 02:19 PM

And here I thought you were dropping it.

SEEM insignificant and are of ACTUAL significance are two different things. You are aware of this right?

Here's a spectrum for you.
Not Significant -- Somewhat Significant -- Significant -- High Significance -- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING HYPERBOLE HYPERBOLE

It isn't when you have a context to work with. Namely me pointing out that because someone called something significant doesn't mean it instantly goes to a hyperbolized (over) reaction. There are degrees of significance as there are degrees of reaction.

We agree that it's wrong that everything about the interaction is highly significant. Yes? Yet that would astonishing and earth-shattering.

We agree that it has to fall somewhere on that line. And that, given that there is a line, this is trivially true. And that it's trivially true that not all things are highly significant.

So, it's a deepity. It is either interesting and false, or trivial and true.

Killer Angel

2014-02-13, 02:29 PM

Therefore, all lesbians must be suspected of being rapists until proven otherwise. They must examine their behavior in this regard on a regular basis.

Please, don't stop, this line of reasoning is fascinating. For example, we must keep in mind that all child abusers are adults. How old are you, Kask? examine your behavior!

I think I'll leave this thread to itself.

McBish

2014-02-13, 02:30 PM

I love this thread, thank you all for posting. Now for a few thoughts I have had reading it.

Green socks question- "So if I meet you and have green socks, that's significant? How?" Well this I figure depends on context. Say I am wearing green socks with a traditional black suit in a business setting. There are a couple of messages I am trying to send. Maybe I am zany and unique and can't have socks of normal gray or white. Maybe I am out of clean normal socks. Maybe green is a lucky color for me and socks are a lucky article of clothing and by wearing green socks I am hoping to be super lucky. Basically it could be as significant or insignificant as we choose to make it. There is no set spectrum of significance in communication because each person you talk to will communicate in slightly different ways. So green socks may be very important to one person and not important at all to another.

Woman afraid/suspicious of strange men-As a skinny white kid I never really think of myself as threatening. Despite being 6'3" I would say about half of the women I hang out with would be able to take me in a fight. This number could be higher or lower my skills in a fight are mostly unknown to me. But I get why women would have this mindset when seeing strange men, and wouldn't hold it against them if they see my height and shaggy beard and think I am a threat. I would find it funny but that is just me.

“Is it possible to see too much meaning in little things?” -Assigning meaning to something, an idea or practice, is risky. Sure there could be a thousand different meanings for any action and trying to figure out the right one is a loosing game. I don't think most people work as simply as we would like them to, and will do things for uncountable and unknowable reasons. And this train of thought is quickly leaving me behind so I am going to stop typing now.

warty goblin

2014-02-13, 02:45 PM

Nobody is being accused of anything. The closest anyone is coming to an accusation is things to the effect of "Population X contains violent population Y, and the XY overlap is not completely visible to an outside observer, and thus it is worth acknowledging that there is some possibility that a member of population X is also a member of population Y, particularly if they display behaviors more common to the XY overlap."

For reference, I was talking about this:

The reason I've stopped saying “most men/some white people/many straight people do X oppressive activity” is because if you’re a member of those groups, I want you to sit there and think, “do I do X? am I a part of that? am I an active part of the problem?”
If I say that only most or some people in those groups participates in X, that’s letting you off the hook! That means that you’re not asked to think about your actions and choices!
And besides, even if you yourself aren't doing X, chances are you know at least five people who do. And I want you to think about them too.
It seems to me that the argument of this statement is that the charge of X oppressive activity should be leveled against an entire group, and not qualified with 'some.' Again, maybe I'm misreading it, but I'm very unsure how else I'm supposed to read a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier - even in the name of promoting thoughtfulness - except as a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier. Perhaps I'm being overly literal again.

Knaight

2014-02-13, 02:50 PM

It seems to me that the argument of this statement is that the charge of X oppressive activity should be leveled against an entire group, and not qualified with 'some.' Again, maybe I'm misreading it, but I'm very unsure how else I'm supposed to read a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier - even in the name of promoting thoughtfulness - except as a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier. Perhaps I'm being overly literal again.

It should be read as "behavior A is prevalent within the population B". That doesn't mean that every member of population B displays behavior A - at most it means that there is a distinct subculture among population B which favors A, or at least doesn't disfavor it as much as other populations.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 02:56 PM

We agree that it's wrong that everything about the interaction is highly significant. Yes? Yet that would astonishing and earth-shattering.

We agree that it has to fall somewhere on that line. And that, given that there is a line, this is trivially true. And that it's trivially true that not all things are highly significant.

So, it's a deepity. It is either interesting and false, or trivial and true.
So, we agreed on something and you felt the need to be this pedantic about it? Wow, okay then. Here's your cookie.

~~~~~~~~~~
So, yeah. Story time:
We have a friend named Ivy, she is a tiny little asian girl with very child-like features, barely speaks english, and at the bars tends to attract a lot of looks from men who are very much older than her. She's in her mid-twenties now, she gets looks from guys in their late 40's. She assumes they're all pedo-creeps.
I have a friend with two younger sisters. They're turning 18 (legal drinking age in Calgary) this year, and already we are planning their first bar excursion. We were talking about the assumed pedo-creeps that Ivy gets looks from. And the father (of the sisters) pipes up.
"Maybe they have kids of their own, and they're just keeping a watchful eye out. I mean, if I saw someone that looked like you two (refering to the sisters) in a bar I'd be watching out for them as well."
The decent person in me wants to assume that these guys aren't eyeing up poor Ivy for nefarious purposes, but at the same time I know that I wouldn't tell Ivy not to be cautious around people like that.

For reference, I was talking about this:
It seems to me that the argument of this statement is that the charge of X oppressive activity should be leveled against an entire group, and not qualified with 'some.' Again, maybe I'm misreading it, but I'm very unsure how else I'm supposed to read a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier - even in the name of promoting thoughtfulness - except as a deliberate implication of a universal quantifier. Perhaps I'm being overly literal again.The way I read it is best explained with an example.
If we were to say "All Canadians do X" my brain works like this;
Do I do X? Nope!
If I were to say "Some Canadians do X" my brain works like this;
That's some Canadians, who cares!

The above is not literally how my brain works but you get the idea. It's the latter that the author seeks to avoid. The author would rather Group X be offended by a generalization because if they are offended by it they are checking their behavior, rather than make a caveated statement at a specific group and have no one checking their behavior.
It's a bit sloppy, and it is using broader generalizations than it should. Is it encouraging that kind of thought, or is it making a different problem?

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 02:58 PM

So, we agreed on something and you felt the need to be this pedantic about it? Wow, okay then. Here's your cookie.

I've studied philosophy at Uni. You have no idea how pedantic I can be. :smalltongue:

(I was pedantic because I wanted to be sure we agreed.)

Weimann

2014-02-13, 03:06 PM

I've never been on a date with a romantic interest, but I can relate to when my friends and I go out some times. Particularly when I'm with one of my friends (my oldest, if not my best) I tend to pay, simply due to the fact that I have much more disposable income than he. I know he sometimes feel it's a bit awkward, but he also recognizes the logic in the arrangement.

If I ever go on a date with a romantic interest, I've long decided that I'll just ask in a light manner how they want to do. It seems like the easiest way to handle stuff.

Weimann

2014-02-13, 03:08 PM

I've studied philosophy at Uni. You have no idea how pedantic I can be. :smalltongue:

(I was pedantic because I wanted to be sure we agreed.)On a tangent: in Gothenburg? Can I ask, how do you find the philosophy courses there? I've been considering taking an introductory level of philosophy or idea history.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 03:11 PM

I've studied philosophy at Uni. You have no idea how pedantic I can be. :smalltongue:

(I was pedantic because I wanted to be sure we agreed.)Good for you. Keep the cookie.

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 03:19 PM

On a tangent: in Gothenburg? Can I ask, how do you find the philosophy courses there? I've been considering taking an introductory level of philosophy or idea history.

I had a great time... but that was almost twenty years ago.

Karoht, we can always discuss over dinner. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG3PnQ3tgzY) :smallwink:

Weimann

2014-02-13, 03:22 PM

I had a great time... but that was almost twenty years ago.Ah, right. Gotcha. :smallbiggrin:

Karoht

2014-02-13, 03:25 PM

I had a great time... but that was almost twenty years ago.

Karoht, we can always discuss over dinner. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG3PnQ3tgzY) :smallwink:
In the interest of staying in line with the thread topic...
"You asked, you're buying."

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 03:49 PM

The way I read it is best explained with an example.
If we were to say "All Canadians do X" my brain works like this;
Do I do X? Nope!
If I were to say "Some Canadians do X" my brain works like this;
That's some Canadians, who cares!

The above is not literally how my brain works but you get the idea. It's the latter that the author seeks to avoid. The author would rather Group X be offended by a generalization because if they are offended by it they are checking their behavior, rather than make a caveated statement at a specific group and have no one checking their behavior.
It's a bit sloppy, and it is using broader generalizations than it should. Is it encouraging that kind of thought, or is it making a different problem?

It just seems like it's much more likely to result in someone just rejecting the author's statements immediately and out of hand due to the author's apparent demonstration of being out of touch/sync with reality or being a blinded zealot/example of Poe's Law than it does that someone would actually check themselves before they wreck themselves.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 03:55 PM

It just seems like it's much more likely to result in someone just rejecting the author's statements immediately and out of hand due to the author's apparent demonstration of being out of touch/sync with reality or being a blinded zealot/example of Poe's Law than it does that someone would actually check themselves before they wreck themselves.To which I am 100% in agreement, I'm merely clarifying (my interpretation of) the logic.

Zrak

2014-02-13, 04:12 PM

And again, rather than protesting your innocence as "one of the good ones", this link may explain things (http://kedasederragar.tumblr.com/post/76137567826/miketooch-bigyachtsandmoney-sorry-its) better than I in regards to why it's not about you, but you still have to deal with it, and accept that people get angry at you for something you didn't do (see also: male privilege).

I generally agree with the points brought up in the comic, but I also really want to make a crack about tumblr getting ever-closer to people arguing with a literal caricature of their opponents.

Wait, what?:confused:

''going Dutch'' means what? It means..

How the did that term get coined/where are it's origins, I'm very curious?:smallconfused:

I'm not sure if as a Dutch person this should offend me....

The origins are debated. As people have said, according to some it derives from slurs against the Dutch, while according to others the term comes from "Dutch doors," which were presumably named without disparaging intent. Others still reject both of these explanations and claim it refers to a custom in the historical Dutch-American community, as seen in some historical novels. Cornelius and Anneke's interactions in Satanstoe are probably the best known example.

Essentially, here's how your stance (and Zorg's, for that matter), looks to me:

Women face less overall risk of violence from men.
However, women face more risk of a specific kind of violence.
Said violence is considered especially bad.
Hence, women are especially justified for fearing men.

I would disagree. I think a more accurate representation looks like this:

Women face less overall risk of violence from men.
However, women face more risk of certain kinds of violence.
Those kinds of violence are more likely to occur in specific situations.
Hence, women are justified for being wary of behavior that may presage that violence in those situations.

I'm willing to claim the chances of a woman being raped as a result of rejected offer are actually a tiny fraction of the chance of being raped overall.

I'm willing to claim I'm the best basketball player in the world, yet the NBA doesn't seem to believe me.

But then it's a completely useless statement. A useful statement would us something about how to classify things on this spectrum. Just saying that something falls on a spectrum is... pointless. Saying something like "even things that seem insignificant may be very important" is not. It's a deepity. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity)

The argument isn't that "something falls on a spectrum," but that it is worth considering where on that spectrum it falls, since our assumptions about that might be erroneous. For instance, you appear to have decided that wearing green socks is "insignificant" without giving the matter due consideration. If you thus wear green socks to job interviews, believing the color of your socks to be insignificant, you are likely to be turned down by interviewers who don't feel your neon-green ankles reflect a "professional" appearance, and thus for whom your green socks are, in fact, a significant component of the social interaction. In other words, in some situations, the color of your socks is probably considerably more important than you give it credit for being.

This isn't a property unique to brightly colored socks. There are a staggering number of components of social interactions that one writes off as largely insignificant — components one relegates to the extreme low end of the spectrum. However, many of the details that are "insignificant" to us might be considerably less insignificant to our interlocutors. The argument is not just that they fall somewhere along a spectrum, but that our assumptions about where they fall along that spectrum might be erroneous, or at least might not reflect others' views on the subject, and it is thus worth giving careful consideration to their placement.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 04:17 PM

There are a staggering number of components of social interactions that one writes off as largely insignificant — components one relegates to the extreme low end of the spectrum. However, many of the details that are "insignificant" to us might be considerably less insignificant to our interlocutors. The argument is not just that they fall somewhere along a spectrum, but that our assumptions about where they fall along that spectrum might be erroneous, or at least might not reflect others' views on the subject, and it is thus worth giving careful consideration to their placement.OMG this. So much!
The number of people I run into who think body language is not significant.
The number of people I run into who think tone and timbre are not significant.

SiuiS

2014-02-13, 04:21 PM

Words have far more context and weight than socks. Socks tend not to hurt people very often.

Oh darn your eyes! I was goo. To mention the specific shade of green but then I see that 'very often' lurking in ambush~!

Let's just say that I think a lot of interpersonal stuff is so insignificant as to indistinguishible from not significant. And that I suspect that you don't even think about those.

Interesting.

A person should think about their own behavior, yes. I'm not sure how that dictum implies it's now OK to accuse large portions of the world's population simply because they might be guilty of something.

It's not, and no accusations have yet been made.

Therefore, all lesbians must be suspected of being rapists until proven otherwise. They must examine their behavior in this regard on a regular basis.

In all seriousness, explain lesbian sexual violence?
Violence on lesbians? Violence by lesbians? Violence where lesbians may hVe been involved?

But then it's a completely useless statement. A useful statement would us something about how to classify things on this spectrum. Just saying that something falls on a spectrum is... pointless. Saying something like "even things that seem insignificant may be very important" is not. It's a deepity. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity)

Yoink! Totally stealing that word.

The statement "this is a spectrum and not a binary" is actually not a deepity. It specifically calls out the idea of two conflicting and mutually exclusive states as incorrect and challenges any thoughts and statements which require binary thinking. In binary thought, something Not A is always B. On a spectrum this is not a given; by removing certain things as unquestioned given ideas you force ideas to be followed to their complete end rather than allowig people to rely on assumption and surmise.

I said many, not too many,

But you clearly meant too many, because you established yourself as the normal baseline, indicated that women were problematic in their speech and communication, and it was because of the number of open circuits.

If there are a lot of circuits and that large amount causes a problem, then the problem is too many circuits. You don't get out of meaning something because you didn't use those exact words on this one. It's a clear logical path.

risking to sound nitpicky, those 2 carry different meanings (most notbaly an opinion)I never said the communication was equally distributed between those levels and that comparable levels between men and women (i.e. the ones they have in common) carry the same amount of information. The fact that you assumed those 2 factors leads to this difference in information.

I did not assume this. I didn't touch it at all because it is not relevant. You're obfuscating.

To clarify my point with a parable: instead of recording a siong by a band through 3 channels of the mixing board, some use 7. Same amount of music, different spread between channels.

Except you said that you don't get music that is spread through 7 channels, it's difficult for you because of the channel amount, and implied 3 channels is good and 7 is not good because it's like listening to noise.

I hardly think a hyperbole and sarcasm are advanced literary techniques,

Good, because we both know I was talking about paradox, the literary technique, which you yourself named, and said you were using, which caused me to say using literary techniques instead of talking causes problems by attempting to remove agency from the other party.

The upside of those little green buttons; fast talk doesn't work.

For reference, I was talking about this:

Interesting. I still say no one has yet accused anyone, and that was an explanation for why accusation could be used as a device, but I am studiously avoiding engaging Zorg or her opposition.

I've studied philosophy at Uni. You have no idea how pedantic I can be. :smalltongue:

(I was pedantic because I wanted to be sure we agreed.)

I do not understand why aren't closer friends? Perhaps we are too alike?

In the interest of staying in line with the thread topic...
"You asked, you're buying."

We have a winner!

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 04:25 PM

This:

“… about how it’s important for feminists to evaluate everyday occurrences. How even routine personal interactions are political. Everything is significant, and even little things have meaning.”

means this:

The argument isn't that "something falls on a spectrum," but that it is worth considering where on that spectrum it falls, since our assumptions about that might be erroneous. For instance, you appear to have decided that wearing green socks is "insignificant" without giving the matter due consideration. If you thus wear green socks to job interviews, believing the color of your socks to be insignificant, you are likely to be turned down by interviewers who don't feel your neon-green ankles reflect a "professional" appearance, and thus for whom your green socks are, in fact, a significant component of the social interaction. In other words, in some situations, the color of your socks is probably considerably more important than you give it credit for being.

This isn't a property unique to brightly colored socks. There are a staggering number of components of social interactions that one writes off as largely insignificant — components one relegates to the extreme low end of the spectrum. However, many of the details that are "insignificant" to us might be considerably less insignificant to our interlocutors. The argument is not just that they fall somewhere along a spectrum, but that our assumptions about where they fall along that spectrum might be erroneous, or at least might not reflect others' views on the subject, and it is thus worth giving careful consideration to their placement.

This is retro-fitting. That is not what the original quote said. What you say makes sense, yes, but that's not what I was arguing about. You are taking a sentence or two and vastly expanding it.

1) what you say is important to everyone, not just feminists.

2) what you say is not about how everything is significant, but about assumptions about where they fall on a spectrum. That is not what the original post is about.

3) everything is not significant, if you use the word as it is commonly used - to mean important, to fall in the higher end of the spectrum.

I should not try to read the minds of others. So, edit.

Grinner

2014-02-13, 04:31 PM

Well, no. Actually I used altruism as a buzzword because it came up earlier. It may have been sloppy but I was relying on the inertia of the thread to provide context for the statement.

Then what did you mean?

You've made the logical failing of thinking because I said do not rush into their open arms for a loving embrace, that the only other possible choice is to spurn them violently. The only thing I have advocated is mindful understanding. Attributing an action or intention to me is silly.

I can see why you would think I was indicating you specifically, but I was not. That entire statement was entirely hypothetical, a product of rational and anecdotal experience.

And still undefined, despite my request :smallwink:

Would you prefer that I pull out a dictionary? :smallwink:

My friend has a saying he's fond of, that I can never remember, but it's something like there's a difference between what's just and what's fair (with an obvious bias to preferring what is just). When discussing these things, it behooves is all to be very, very clear, and very, very aware of the complexity of the situations discussed.

For example, one passing rhetorical remark, intended only for the purpose of comparison, is isolated from its original context by someone else for examination. After the original poster responds, it explodes into a line of inquiry and is then confused with several other ongoing lines of inquiry, contributing to the degradation of the discussion.

It's like we're trying to talk, but we can't decide what we're talking about.

Seerow

2014-02-13, 04:32 PM

So I read the first page and the last page... skipping the middle I really should have expected the shift in conversation, but didn't. Seriously anyone who's been involved go back and read just those two pages and see the stark contrast. We should probably get away from all of the nastiness before the thread gets shut down.

That said, I'm going to agree with this line from the first page:

As someone on the other end of this, the principle I would like to work on is that if I invite someone out for dinner, I pay for it

Or as Karoht put it more recently:

In the interest of staying in line with the thread topic...
"You asked, you're buying."

At least for anyone I'm not going out with regularly. I have some friends who we alternate who pays every time we go out regardless of whose idea it is, and if I am dating a girl who doesn't mind the guy paying, I don't mind paying. When getting to know someone you want to be more cautious, but when you know them better you generally come to terms that are comfortable for everyone involved.

Karoht

2014-02-13, 04:43 PM

Oh darn your eyes! I was goo. To mention the specific shade of green but then I see that 'very often' lurking in ambush~!I didn't want to be too specific. I mean, someone might have busted out statistics of socks hurting people, and I greatly did not enjoy the thought of trying to find statistics of words hurting people.

We have a winner!Interesting. Though I must be truthful and say that I have never said this to someone suggesting conversation over dinner. Usually I enjoy more pleasant details such as the venue or the cuisine. Partly why I tend to avoid discussing the bill details until after the meal. Perhaps I am thinking too selfishly in that regard.

blunk

2014-02-13, 04:47 PM

Seriously anyone who's been involved go back and read just those two pages and see the stark contrast.3-4 here, but I saw where it was headed and just thought, "have fun storming the castle!" :smallsmile:

Asta Kask

2014-02-13, 04:50 PM

This time I'm leaving for real, promise.

This thread is bad for my OCD tendencies.

Murska

2014-02-13, 04:52 PM

I dunno. I think that mindful dedication can indeed overcome upbringing.

So do I. But it is difficult to overcome your bias. That's what I think I said, and it is at least what I meant.

We don't discuss religion in the Playground.

Mostly true, but I did not mention religion nor does the topic require religion to be brought up, so I am confused why this was brought up. All I talked about (or at least all I think I talked about, and meant to talk about) was the difference between people who believe in free will and people who do not believe in free will, and more specifically how ethics and blame relate to that division. Religion should definitely not be brought up, even if it might affect where some people fall in this division, because all that is mentioned is that there is a division (there are people who believe in one and people who believe in the other) and there is no need to know how many or what kind of people for the purposes of the argument.

I disagree.

Yes, okay. But why? Elaborate. You either see a flaw in my argument or you don't. If there is a flaw, I wish to know that flaw so I can correct my thinking, and I will be grateful to you for pointing it out. If there is no flaw, and you still disagree, then I hope you think about it more than that.

Women suffer a disproportionately large share of sexual violence on a gender to gender scale.
+
This violence is usually perpetrated by someone known to the attacker
=
Some women are wary of men in social situations, and dislike actions they see as possible "red flags" of further negative, possibly dangerous traits.

Note that the following does not signify my own opinion on the matter either way, because I do not feel like I have enough knowledge to form a very coherent opinion on the matter.

I believe what is being said is, in fact, that:

Value statements:
> Sexual violence is very bad.
> Hurting people's feelings by being cautious of them is a little bad.

> Women suffer a disproportionately large share of sexual violence on a gender to gender scale.
> This violence is usually perpetrated by someone known to the attacker.
> However, the previous two talk about relative values, and on the whole, the odds of this happening in any individual situation are extremely low. (NOTE: I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS ONE IS TRUE. I don't actually know if the previous ones are true either. I have not researched the subject enough.)
> As a result of points 1 and 2, women are cautious around all men in social situations.
> The total 'bad' from hurting many people's feelings a little by being cautious of them is worse than the total 'bad' that would result from not being cautious of anyone, due to the small risk that this results in sexual violence.

That's just an attempt to clarify things. I don't know enough about the facts to say whether the premises are true, plus the value statements are not very objective at all, plus things are not properly quantified into numbers so we don't know if the math checks out and various other problems here.

Kalmageddon

2014-02-13, 04:59 PM

Please, don't stop, this line of reasoning is fascinating. For example, we must keep in mind that all child abusers are adults. How old are you, Kask? examine your behavior!

I think I'll leave this thread to itself.
This thread taught me that you can't make a strawman absurd enough, some people will top that with their own actual beliefs and leave you speechless.
I can't bring myself to even reply to some posts anymore, I wouldn't know what to say except "this is bonkers".

Zrak

2014-02-13, 05:38 PM

1) what you say is important to everyone, not just feminists.
Despite frequent internet rumors to the contrary, being important to feminists does not preclude being important to others.

2) what you say is not about how everything is significant, but about assumptions about where they fall on a spectrum. That is not what the original post is about.

3) everything is not significant, if you use the word as it is commonly used - to mean important, to fall in the higher end of the spectrum.
I disagree. The original claim is that it is important to evaluate everyday occurrences because even "little" things are important. Everything is significant not in the sense that everything is of monumental importance, but in the sense that even the most minute and routine aspects of our interactions are worth consideration and examination because even the most incidental detail can, and often does, signify something to our interlocutors.

Knaight

2014-02-13, 05:40 PM

> However, the previous two talk about relative values, and on the whole, the odds of this happening in any individual situation are extremely low. (NOTE: I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS ONE IS TRUE. I don't actually know if the previous ones are true either. I have not researched the subject enough.)

About that. There have been a few major studies on this, including two self report studies. One of these is the Lisak and Miller survey of male college students, another the McWhorter survery of enlisted Navy personnel. The Lisak and Miller survery is the less grim of the two, and asked this.

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
Lisak & Miller at 77-78.
6% of people said that they did this. College students are not a representative sample of the population (though college students and former college students make up a pretty huge portion), but 6% is still alarmingly high. Of this sub population, 63% admitted to doing this more than once - about 4% of the total population. The mean is also way above the median here (5.8 to 3), which basically makes an even smaller group of habitual rapists among the people willing to admit to rape.

This seems like ample cause to worry, and isn't exactly what I'd call extremely low for a simple precaution. After all, people take simple precautions for reasonable reasons all the time even when the risk of anything happening on any individual instance is pretty low. Electricians routinely wear protective gear, it is rarely needed. Cyclists routinely wear helmets, it is rarely needed. Keeping an eye out in this scenario is hardly unreasonable.

A longer analysis is here (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/).

Karoht

2014-02-13, 08:48 PM

http://jamesmsama.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/8-acts-of-chivalry-to-bring-back/
Thoughts on the above article?

Proud Tortoise

2014-02-13, 10:40 PM

http://jamesmsama.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/8-acts-of-chivalry-to-bring-back/
Thoughts on the above article?

Both males and females should try to do that, no? I don't like that article.

Coidzor

2014-02-13, 10:50 PM

http://jamesmsama.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/8-acts-of-chivalry-to-bring-back/
Thoughts on the above article?

4 is the only one I really agree with all that strongly, and it's mostly out of a matter of necessity, because of the perception that any proposition weak enough that it has to be done via text is doomed to failure anyway. Though I'm kind of confused as to who exactly has abandoned the practice of actually asking people on dates in person or at least via real-time communication.

Largely because I don't believe giving up one's seat to the elderly has actually gone away. Or any of the actually goodish things there.

Knaight

2014-02-13, 10:56 PM

4 is the only one I really agree with all that strongly, and it's mostly out of a matter of necessity, because of the perception that any proposition weak enough that it has to be done via text is doomed to failure anyway. Though I'm kind of confused as to who exactly has abandoned the practice of actually asking people on dates in person or at least via real-time communication.

People who don't like phone calls, mostly. I know a lot of people who prefer to communicate by text - phones tend to have issues with audio (cutting off everything above 3000 Hz is common, and utterly wrecks the ability to tell certain sounds apart), they don't leave records the way texting does, etc. It's a matter of personal preference which also has a generation gap attached - plus, odds are good that formality has been dropped somewhat when arranging, say, date #17.

Murska

2014-02-13, 11:04 PM

I prefer using text for communication over speaking whenever possible simply because I feel it much easier to accurately convey the information I want using text, it gives me time to think about what I'm communicating and edit it if necessary and I don't need to react to a text nearly as quickly as to someone calling me or speaking to me, if I happen to be doing something else at the time.

Coidzor

2014-02-14, 12:46 AM

People who don't like phone calls, mostly. I know a lot of people who prefer to communicate by text - phones tend to have issues with audio (cutting off everything above 3000 Hz is common, and utterly wrecks the ability to tell certain sounds apart), they don't leave records the way texting does, etc. It's a matter of personal preference which also has a generation gap attached - plus, odds are good that formality has been dropped somewhat when arranging, say, date #17.

How is the banality of might-as-well-be-an-item-even-if-we-don't-have-a-formal-term-for-it relevant? :smallconfused:

For that matter, how are the audio limitations of telecommunications relevant?

Really, the only potential grounds I'm seeing are A. those people who have some kind of phobia for actually speaking on the phone or B. some kind of generation gap deal, though it seems to be played up over its actual substance so far.

SiuiS

2014-02-14, 03:15 AM

Then what did you mean?

I'm afraid that if it isn't clear by now it won't be, and further afraid that fixation on a sentence rather thn a theme or idea will lead nowhere progressive.

I can see why you would think I was indicating you specifically, but I was not. That entire statement was entirely hypothetical, a product of rational and anecdotal experience.

Maybe not me, but this thread. There are usually qualifiers for 'present company excluded' or 'in my entire life's experience' is all.

Would you prefer that I pull out a dictionary? :smallwink:

If you are using the dictionary definition? Yes.

I'm in a conversation with a man I believe Germany, Sweden, I forgot the other two examples, all with different vocabularies, grasps of grammar, and pedantic inclinations, on top of native English speakers who are often worse because the non-natives have this mistaken notion that native speakers care. Clarity is a virtue.

For example, one passing rhetorical remark, intended only for the purpose of comparison, is isolated from its original context by someone else for examination. After the original poster responds, it explodes into a line of inquiry and is then confused with several other ongoing lines of inquiry, contributing to the degradation of the discussion.

It's like we're trying to talk, but we can't decide what we're talking about.

I prefer to think the conversation grows and cannot be artificially trimmed.

So do I. But it is difficult to overcome your bias. That's what I think I said, and it is at least what I meant.

Okay.

Mostly true, but I did not mention religion nor does the topic require religion to be brought up

If I did not find it religious I would not have stopped for that reason. Your question may not be, while the answer could be. Failing that it's also political.

Yes, okay. But why? Elaborate.

I have. At that point the core of my disagreement had been stated several times. Read the parts that aren't just responses to you. :smallsmile:

This thread taught me that you can't make a strawman absurd enough, some people will top that with their own actual beliefs and leave you speechless.
I can't bring myself to even reply to some posts anymore, I wouldn't know what to say except "this is bonkers".

The irony.

http://jamesmsama.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/8-acts-of-chivalry-to-bring-back/
Thoughts on the above article?

"8. Drop them off before parking"
Really? I've known two women to find this expedient and everyone else finds it nerve wracking to go out as a herd and be cut into stray lambs.

Really, the only potential grounds I'm seeing are A. those people who have some kind of phobia for actually speaking on the phone or B. some kind of generation gap deal, though it seems to be played up over its actual substance so far.

Generation gap. People who are on their phone texting constantly don't realize other people aren't. They send repeated text messages asking for immediate response, not getting they are using a medium expressly for easy going response time.