Re: "Entitlement, Nerds and Neanderthals"- today's Prime post etc.

[nearly_takuan]

When the fruit hears you point out that a selection of the fruit had gone rotten, some of the non-rotten fruit is going to ask itself if maybe it really is rotten after all, and go hide on the back shelf so nobody eats a rotten fruit by accident. And it'll stay there until it rots. Or maybe it will go out of its way to prove it isn't rotten by peeling itself for everyone to see. Neither is helpful as a way of being purchased/eaten, at least until a Seinfeld fruititarian comes along looking specifically for expired food because it's so exotic and they get to feel good about being so self-sacrificing and rebellious. Sorry, what were we talking about again?

The thought re: stereotypes was not fully formed earlier, and it still isn't. It's a big issue! But I don't think of women as needy or nagging or clingy or bossy or bitchy. Instead I probably assume women automatically have a higher degree of social competence. For that matter, so do you and celette and Wondering! Theory of theory of mind, and all that.

Dan: I've had similar thoughts before, but I'm not willing to risk inflicting egregious harm just to benefit myself if I can help it. It's literally a fear of being creepy, not just getting called creepy.

[Dan_Brodribb]

Dan: I've had similar thoughts before, but I'm not willing to risk inflicting egregious harm just to benefit myself if I can help it. It's literally a fear of being creepy, not just getting called creepy.

I'd like to hear more about what you mean by egregious harm. What do you risk inflicting on people?

[nearly_takuan]

Dan: I've had similar thoughts before, but I'm not willing to risk inflicting egregious harm just to benefit myself if I can help it. It's literally a fear of being creepy, not just getting called creepy.

I'd like to hear more about what you mean by egregious harm. What do you risk inflicting on people?

The feeling of getting creeped on, natch.

[Caffeinated]

When the fruit hears you point out that a selection of the fruit had gone rotten, some of the non-rotten fruit is going to ask itself if maybe it really is rotten after all, and go hide on the back shelf so nobody eats a rotten fruit by accident. And it'll stay there until it rots. Or maybe it will go out of its way to prove it isn't rotten by peeling itself for everyone to see. Neither is helpful as a way of being purchased/eaten, at least until a Seinfeld fruititarian comes along looking specifically for expired food because it's so exotic and they get to feel good about being so self-sacrificing and rebellious. Sorry, what were we talking about again?

That... kind of makes sense to me. (Except that last bit with the Seinfeld fruititarian, but that's a joke I'm not getting, right?) Of course, I don't really know what to do with this information, but I think I'm dimly starting to get it, or at least some of it.

Dan: I've had similar thoughts before, but I'm not willing to risk inflicting egregious harm just to benefit myself if I can help it. It's literally a fear of being creepy, not just getting called creepy.

Hmmm, this is interesting. If I'm reading it correctly, you mean to say that being creepy around someone, or making someone feel a bit creeped out, is something that in your view counts as doing them egregious harm? If that is what you mean, I would have to say that I disagree with that. I don't believe that being creepy around someone rises to the level of doing them egregious harm. Could that be where some of the disconnect is happening, as far as people with high scrupulosity fearing that a social faux pas will hurt someone? I'm reminded of the religious upbringing of my childhood, in which I was taught if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he had sinned just as much as if he had actually committed adultery with her. I think that idea (that the thought is just as bad as the deed) is actually total and complete bullshit, and the cause of a lot of problems in the world (and in my own life experiences in particular).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, I don't know. Do you (or other guys in this discussion) feel that being rude to someone or making her uncomfortable is the same as actually harming her?

I think there's a crucial difference between words and deeds. Saying something rude or creepy doesn't harm someone in the same way as stealing their car or burning down their house harms them. On the other hand, I'm not trying to say sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. There are words that can hurt. But again, there's a big difference in the kind of words a person is talking about. For example, telling someone you're arguing with "you're a douche and all your ideas are terrible and wrong" is a very different thing from telling them "you deserve to die and I know where you live and I'm coming to your house to murder your pets in front of you and then rape you to death". They're just not the same.

/meandering

[Werel]

Dan: I've had similar thoughts before, but I'm not willing to risk inflicting egregious harm just to benefit myself if I can help it. It's literally a fear of being creepy, not just getting called creepy.

I'd like to hear more about what you mean by egregious harm. What do you risk inflicting on people?

The feeling of getting creeped on, natch.

While drawing a firm line between "being hit on by awkward/'creepy' dudes*" and "harassment," I have to say that the former has never felt like it caused me "egregious harm." A drive to avoid doing harm to others is commendable, but aim for a realistic and nuanced assessment of that potential harm.

*That is, dudes who I find off-putting in their demeanor, not just dudes who do not meet mainstream standards of social calibration.

ETA: You nailed it, Caffeinated.

[nearly_takuan]

Makes sense, and I shall endeavor to work on it. Glad I was able to give a (possibly still blurry) picture of my start-point and current-point, though, and grateful to y'all for responding in helpful ways.

[nearly_takuan]

Additional thought: the generally understood consequence for creepy behavior is that the other person will never again want anything to do with you. Degrees of physical harm are easy enough to differentiate by consequence: "oh" vs "ow" vs "OW!! vs (limply flops over). Social harm is more volatile, therefore easier to psych oneself out over and/or classify incorrectly. (Then again, I was also the guy who had to learn to run with the bball really fast, because I sucked at physically guarding it for fear I'd accidentally push somebody. So some of it's just plain old neurotic-ism anyway.)

If there's no solution that does less harm than good, then we're all just going to have to live with it anyway, which...sucks but is by definition not worth fighting over. I'm interested in figuring it out, either way; if NP-complete problems will never be solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic system, we'd all like to know that for sure so we can stop wasting time trying to solve it.

[Mel]

When the fruit hears you point out that a selection of the fruit had gone rotten, some of the non-rotten fruit is going to ask itself if maybe it really is rotten after all, and go hide on the back shelf so nobody eats a rotten fruit by accident. And it'll stay there until it rots. Or maybe it will go out of its way to prove it isn't rotten by peeling itself for everyone to see. Neither is helpful as a way of being purchased/eaten, at least until a Seinfeld fruititarian comes along looking specifically for expired food because it's so exotic and they get to feel good about being so self-sacrificing and rebellious. Sorry, what were we talking about again?

Heh. I guess where I have trouble understanding is in that I feel people are usually reasonably specific in what they mean by "rotten." They point out specific behaviors they consider problematic. I have trouble understanding why a, er, fruit would hear people saying, "Some of this fruit is rotten. If I eat something that has black spots on it it'll make me sick," and not be able to look at itself and determine that it does not, indeed, have black spots. I mean, from my actual experience, I've seen PoC complain about plenty of things they don't like white people doing. Sometimes I recognize that I have done those things, feel ashamed, and make a mental note to strive to avoid doing so in future. Sometimes I consider my past behavior and/or current thought patterns and recognize that it isn't something I have/am likely to do, and while I'll still make a mental note just in case, I don't go around terrified that I might be doing that thing without somehow realizing it. I also recognize that it is highly unlikely that, given my privilege which is difficult to completely unpack, I will never put my foot in my mouth on issues of race (or other areas where I have privilege), and that all I can do is avoid doing so to the best of my ability and be prepared to make amends when I slip up, because deciding I'm simply going to avoid PoC (or whatever group) altogether just to ease my own worries is equally problematic. I still get anxious about this stuff, but I don't feel like I'm a horrible human being because some other white people are defending police shootings or using racial slurs or whathaveyou, when I know I don't do that.

I assume guys can tell that they're not shouting lewd comments at women or groping women or whatever. It sounds like maybe the problem is that you are conflating the big problematic behaviors that make women feel really awful with the "microaggressions" that aren't fun but women tend to accept as part of the noise of life as a woman? Because I agree with the others who are saying that a guy doing one thing that's mildly creepy doesn't feel like a horrible infraction to me, especially if, if I make it clear I want him to stop, he stops (which presumably you know you would do). Sometimes big and small issues get brought up at the same time, the same way someone might say, "Ugh, it's really awful when you buy fruit and it's rotten and it makes you sick, and it's also kind of annoying to find out that apple you just bought has bruises on it," but that doesn't mean that fruit that's rotten is as bad as fruit that has a couple of bruises but is still totally edible. (Have we totally worn out that metaphor yet? )

The thought re: stereotypes was not fully formed earlier, and it still isn't. It's a big issue! But I don't think of women as needy or nagging or clingy or bossy or bitchy. Instead I probably assume women automatically have a higher degree of social competence. For that matter, so do you and celette and Wondering! Theory of theory of mind, and all that.

Well, no, actually. Believing women in general have more insight into men's experiences than men have into women's is a totally different thing from believing women are more socially competent. I think I'm a reasonably empathic person (you kind of have to be, to be a successful writer, since that requires portraying the experiences and thoughts of people who aren't you in a believable way), but that hasn't stopped me from being completely socially awkward. I may be able to imagine what it's like to be in someone else's shoes, but I still find it hard to follow the social cues and body language that would give me hints as to how the person would prefer I respond to the experiences they've shared, or what other topics they might be interested in, or whether they're truly enjoying my company or just being polite, or how to attempt to deepen an acquaintanship into a friendship, and so on and so forth. And, I mean, I have those problems even with women who are quite a bit like me, where I should have the most insight. And as many of the people in this conversation undoubtedly know, even when you think you do know the right thing to do, if you have a lot of anxiety it's easy to second guess yourself or have that anxiety prevent you from expressing what you want to the way you want to.

(There's also the fact that, when it comes to dating, while women may be more familiar with issues men face than vice versa, we don't know which particular concerns apply to any particular man. You have to get to know a person before you can apply that knowledge to figuring out how to relate to them, and if you're anxious or uncertain about whether any given guy is going to want to talk to you at all... Well, it can be hard to get to that point.)

[Caffeinated]

Additional thought: the generally understood consequence for creepy behavior is that the other person will never again want anything to do with you. Degrees of physical harm are easy enough to differentiate by consequence: "oh" vs "ow" vs "OW!! vs (limply flops over). Social harm is more volatile, therefore easier to psych oneself out over and/or classify incorrectly. (Then again, I was also the guy who had to learn to run with the bball really fast, because I sucked at physically guarding it for fear I'd accidentally push somebody. So some of it's just plain old neurotic-ism anyway.)

The bit I bolded made me think of something. In some cases, it could end up with the exact opposite result. I don't mean that it always will or whatever. Let me see if I can come up with a hypothetical situation to illustrate.

Let's say a guy goes up to a girl in a social situation and kind of looms over her and asks her out in a somewhat awkward fashion. She feels creeped out by the looming and the awkward phrasing, and kind of cringes and steps back and squeaks out an uncomfortable response. The guy, who loomed because he's young and has only just grown big and tall and hasn't yet figured out the exact new boundaries of his body and its space, realizes he's made her uncomfortable. He also takes a step back, kind of puts his hands up and says "sorry about that, I didn't mean to get in your space like that", and then changes the subject, downshifting to something neutral like "so how about that pop quiz in chemistry the other day". She says something back about the neutral topic, he responds, the topic kind of sputters out, then he smiles at her and says something like "well, take it easy" and goes over to socialize with someone else or get some food or whatever.

In that hypothetical, there's a good chance that the recovery, where he backed off and changed the subject and didn't hang around too long but also didn't immediately slink away like a kicked puppy, well, maybe that recovery left that girl thinking he was actually a pretty good guy. Having the courage to show you like someone by going up and talking to them is a good trait. Putting your foot in your mouth is a universal experience, so she might sympathize with that part. And being able to back off without making a big deal of things after making a mistake is the kind of thing that actually builds trust. So the end result might be that she now knows who he is and has a favorable opinion of him.

It's not necessary to be perfect in your interactions with other people. Not only not necessary, but not possible. Being able to let go of it, and not get defensive or double down on the mistake, that shows grace. In my opinion, the guy who makes a mistake and can just say "sorry about that" without getting defensive is more trustworthy than the one who never makes a mistake, and way more trustworthy than the one who gets angry and defensive if you suggest he made a mistake.

[azazel]

Azazel, I'm interested to hear more about what you're describing - from previous comments here, I really hadn't realized that was how you felt about things - but it seems like this discussion already has you feeling attacked and angry. Would it be alright if I ask some follow-up questions? This is a difficult topic for everyone, and I don't want to contribute to it becoming more heated than it already is by putting people in a position of feeling like they have to justify their experience or their feelings.[/b]

How else would be such a strapping gentleman like me be single, even though I've also got the charming personality to match my incredible looks?
I can honestly say that the prospect to get my teeth knocked out by standing up to a drunk guy scared me about as much as the prospect of being forced to hug people does.
Coincidentally, after "saving" the girl on that occasion with the drunk from the unwanted attention, I didn't acknowledge she existed for the rest of the drive because I was afraid of forcing even more unwanted attention on her and being a creep myself, which must have looked pretty awkward. "Hey! I'll swoop in, solve the situation, but then I won't ask if you're okay or look at you or anything, because I'm cool like that."

Azazel, I apologize if my initial post came across as attacking you for offering information others had asked for.  I wasn't directing it at you or at anyone else who's only shared feelings when asked.  When I said "Aaronson and most of the other guys I'm seeing sympathizing with him," I meant guys who were spontaneously talking about how they shared his anxiety of women and reasons for it, mostly on the blog, not guys who answered requests for information. And those guys are going out of their way to point out to women how anxiety provoking we are, which you acknowledge sounds offensive and is why I may have sounded somewhat frustrated when talking about them.  I'm sorry that wasn't completely clear.

Your posts just ignited a combination of frustration that a) women in general seem so blissfully unaware (and sometimes even unbelieving) of this extremely common anxiety in men, b) it's hard to explain where it comes from without sounding like "bitches be unreasonable, yo", c) all those theories in this thread that try to womensplain these issues, ranging from the ridiculous to the downright insulting. My apologies for overreacting.

[Guest]

I agree with celette WRT theory of mind stuff, but I would just note that all that means is that women can predict men's behavior better than the reverse. It doesn't mean they get some super special insight in men's inner subjective experiences or reasons for acting. I get annoyed when feminists tell men why they're really behaving or feeling one way, as if they're mind readers or something.

Indeed! It's almost always a bad idea to tell someone what the real reason they're behaving or feeling a certain way is. And yet, despite it being a bad idea, it seems to be everywhere. Weird.

The exact thing you're talking about is one of the things that always rubs me the wrong way about a lot of PUA stuff. They start off ok, by predicting how women in a certain situation will react to something, and then they make some outlandish statement as to why they'll react that way. The why is nearly always wrong, and often really insultingly so. I imagine a lot of the whys given for other people's behavior combine some amount of wrong and insulting.

I don't like this either. Assumptions and good guesswork are great if properly adjusted with questioning the subject of the assumptions or making some observations. But the trend towards saying 'Actually, you feel this way because X' or 'Group Y do this because X' is worrying. I think it's particularly bad for any person that has confidence issues and struggles with self-doubt. Am I right? Am I wrong? This is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night when someone plants that Worry Seed. My status can't change to Sleep, so Rest is useless.

It doesn't help anyone.

if I had to guess, I would say the difference for you and RBS is both of you have HAD the experience of being called creepy and having worked to move past it. So you have the benefit of hindsight. The impression I get from many guys (and it was true of me in the past) that the fear of the consequences of being creepy and the belief that I can't handle it prevents them from acting. So they (we, if I included past me) don't actually KNOW what will happen--it's just a shapeless Fear Fog on the horizon we imagine must contain Something Unimaginably Bad.

I can at least say here that this is my experience - I've never been called creepy, I have this fear that I inherently am. I mean, I understand it's a load of bollocks. I brought it up with my sister and she would tell me straight if I seemed creepy to her or others. She laughed at the idea. So I'm caught between the fear of being creepy and the fact that I have zero confirmation I am.

To bring this on topic, I just wonder if I have something wonky going on in my head that has thrown my Theory of Mind way off balance in a similar fashion to simply not being able to put myself in the shoes of a woman or minority as well as a white guy. Because I'd like to think from what I've posted on the site I don't appear as if I don't understand at all how women or minorities feel, but it feels like I'm forcing something that does not come naturally at all. It might be why If often find it very emotionally draining - I have a ridiculously low capacity for it.

I can't address the issue you raise of not feeling things much, but I did want to address your comment that you feel like empathy is something that doesn't come naturally at all to you. I think that's true for a lot of people. I don't think empathy with groups you don't belong to is necessarily natural. I think you have to especially work at it if it's a group you have privilege over.

Now, I would say that I have automatic empathy to a certain extent with groups that have privilege over me (specifically men and the able-bodied) because that is the norm/default in our society, and I have been acclimated and socialized to life like that. I don't think it's particularly natural, though.

Hm. If this is true, then I feel better for trying to be more empathetic even when it feels more forced than it should. It's pretty much one of the reasons why I post here and peruse anything feminist. Gotta learn it somehow. Hopefully over time it becomes more natural.

As for the feeling thing, back before I really delved into the meaning of the word (because it's far too overused and misused) I had suspicions I could be a psychopath of some sort. But I'm probably closer to Aspergers (AKA 'Autistic psychopathy') if I'm anything. But I have no diagnosis so I could just be emotionally stunted for all I know.

[nearly_takuan]

Well said on pretty much all of that; I've nothing further to add at present except:

if you're anxious or uncertain about whether any given guy is going to want to talk to you at all... Well, it can be hard to get to that point.

The culturally accepted default reaction to uncertainty for women is to wait for the guy to make a move, and/or take indirect actions while maintaining plausible deniability. This is not the case for men. Again, I am not trying to claim there isn't anything problematic about this for women. It sucks to have to take it upon yourself to approach, and then still be unable to trust when you hear a "yes". But it also sucks when you have to take it on yourself to approach, and you never hear one, and the only advice anyone has for you is just go do it more times.

---

For me, emotional intelligence and cognitive or knowledge-based intelligence are not that different, or maybe it's just that I lack the former and substitute the latter where I can. Dealing with other people's feelings usually feels more like a calculation based on what they've expressed and what that implies they need and what that implies they don't need and what sorts of things will serve those needs. Dealing with my own is...much less of a pragmatic endeavor.

---

frustration that a) women in general seem so blissfully unaware (and sometimes even unbelieving) of this extremely common anxiety in men, b) it's hard to explain where it comes from without sounding like "bitches be unreasonable, yo", c) all those theories in this thread that try to womensplain these issues, ranging from the ridiculous to the downright insulting.

+++++++++++++++++++++

[Dan_Brodribb]

azazel and Nearly_takuan, I can understand your frustration. There are times I feel similar frustrations.

I think that's okay.

Ultimately though, these are OUR angers and resentments and fears. I'm not sure what women in general or the specific ones on this forum can be expected to do about it.

You're the experts on your own lives, so maybe you can help. What are you looking for here? Acknowlegement? Acceptance? Do you want the women here or feminism as a whole to say that you are right and they are wrong? Are you asking the world to change? Something else? Is there something specific you're looking to hear?


ETA:

Your posts just ignited a combination of frustration that a) women in general seem so blissfully unaware (and sometimes even unbelieving) of this extremely common anxiety in men, b) it's hard to explain where it comes from without sounding like "bitches be unreasonable, yo", c) all those theories in this thread that try to womensplain these issues, ranging from the ridiculous to the downright insulting. My apologies for overreacting.

<mod> I'm not crazy about the way you phrased the bolded part (above). I'm wondering if you can edit to make it less inflammatory and more in keeping with our forum guidelines </mod>

[azazel]

azazel and Nearly_takuan, I can understand your frustration. There are times I feel similar frustrations.

I think that's okay.

Ultimately though, these are OUR angers and resentments and fears. I'm not sure what women in general or the specific ones on this forum can be expected to do about it.

You're the experts on your own lives, so maybe you can help. What are you looking for here? Acknowlegement? Acceptance? Do you want the women here or feminism as a whole to say that you are right and they are wrong? Are you asking the world to change? Something else? Is there something specific you're looking to hear?

Aren't those questions you should ask the people who are asking for our point of view?
People ask for information - I supply it. No more or less.

That you're already making assumptions that I'm expecting women in general to do something about it is quite insulting, just thought you should know.

[Dan_Brodribb]

You're right, azazel. I missed the part where you were replying to Caffeinated's question. I imagine it must be tough feeling like you're being asked for an opinion and then being told it's wrong. I know when it happens to me, I feel like I've been put in a no-win situation.

<mod> Whether you are in the right or not, the forum rules about respectful language apply to everyone who wants to post here. I'm going to ask you a second time to be more mindful of your phrasing</mod>

[Mel]

Well said on pretty much all of that; I've nothing further to add at present except:

if you're anxious or uncertain about whether any given guy is going to want to talk to you at all... Well, it can be hard to get to that point.

The culturally accepted default reaction to uncertainty for women is to wait for the guy to make a move, and/or take indirect actions while maintaining plausible deniability. This is not the case for men. Again, I am not trying to claim there isn't anything problematic about this for women. It sucks to have to take it upon yourself to approach, and then still be unable to trust when you hear a "yes". But it also sucks when you have to take it on yourself to approach, and you never hear one, and the only advice anyone has for you is just go do it more times.

As previously, I'm not sure how this follows? We were discussing your belief and your assumption that I believed that women are more socially competent than men. I was giving examples of how insight doesn't necessarily confer social benefits. I didn't intend to imply that only women are anxious or have reason to be in these situations--when I referenced other people here being able to relate to anxiety affecting social performance, I was including the guys in that. Sure, women face less pressure to approach. That doesn't make them any more socially competent when a guy approaches them, or when the guy they're interested in doesn't and they want to move things along, or when no guys at all are approaching and they want to present as more socially appealing. It seems to me pressure is a completely separate topic from competency.

BTW, I want to express to all the guys here that I don't think it's wrong and I'm not upset by guys discussing how hearing women talk about being harmed by guys makes them anxious, as a general topic. I think it's totally understandable to be concerned about accidentally coming off wrong, and totally understandable for those dealing with clinical anxiety to have a lot of trouble getting past that worry. I think it's great for guys to try to figure out solutions to that, and I'm happy to try to help when I have the spoons for it. Where I get upset is when those discussions include the clear implication that women/feminists are doing something wrong by talking about harm they've faced or how to prevent it. That happened in Aaronson's post; that's what a lot of us were taking issue with. I think there have been many productive discussions here where women have been supportive and sympathetic and tried to help men through these sort of anxieties, and I hope that you will remember that and try to recognize that people getting upset about one framing of the subject is not an attempt to tell you that your feelings are invalid, that we don't acknowledge or care about them, or that you should keep quiet.

[nearly_takuan]

It just seemed to me that that particular line was trying to say this isn't a gender-coded problem after all. You've convinced me that confidence in one's own rightness is not necessarily a shield against insecurity (which would be of social benefit), but it still seems to me that there's some kind of qualitative difference between an unsuccessful man's experience and an unsuccessful woman's—one of them being the order in which "get to know someone" and "apply knowledge correctly for the specific person" typically occurs. So I think there may still be a place for a movement that, for lack of better phrasing, prioritizes men's problems.

[Aggrax]

This is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night when someone plants that Worry Seed. My status can't change to Sleep, so Rest is useless.

I see what you did there.

I can at least say here that this is my experience - I've never been called creepy, I have this fear that I inherently am.

^This, right here. The reason I decided to completely remove myself from the dating field, and why I've been trying to figure out how to ask my doctor about medication to remove or suppress any kind of sex drive, is because I feel like anything I do or say would be regarded as being creepy and weird. Even just standing somewhere I feel like I'm creeping someone out because they think I'm taking up to much space or lurking or something.

Heh. I guess where I have trouble understanding is in that I feel people are usually reasonably specific in what they mean by "rotten." They point out specific behaviors they consider problematic. I have trouble understanding why a, er, fruit would hear people saying, "Some of this fruit is rotten. If I eat something that has black spots on it it'll make me sick," and not be able to look at itself and determine that it does not, indeed, have black spots.

I think the problem a lot of people have with this is that the "black spots" may not be something the person is capable of seeing. I know that, for me, when someone talks about something offensive or horrible that men/white people/nerds do, if I examine myself and don't see any evidence that I have done those things, my first thought isn't that "I'm glad I didn't do those things." It's "Oh no, how many examples of those things have I forgotten about over the years."

[azazel]

ETA:

Your posts just ignited a combination of frustration that a) women in general seem so blissfully unaware (and sometimes even unbelieving) of this extremely common anxiety in men, b) it's hard to explain where it comes from without sounding like "bitches be unreasonable, yo", c) all those theories in this thread that try to womensplain these issues, ranging from the ridiculous to the downright insulting. My apologies for overreacting.

<mod> I'm not crazy about the way you phrased the bolded part (above). I'm wondering if you can edit to make it less inflammatory and more in keeping with our forum guidelines </mod>

Hmm, strange. I don't see an "edited" flag, but I could've sworn this warning wasn't there when I started typing up my reply to you.

Anyway, what would be an acceptable phrasing to you? I do find it highly problematic that people who fully admit they don't get it still try to posit theories why we feel the way we do and make sweeping generalizations in the process.
EDIT: To be clear, when theories are clearly theories and our input is asked what makes sense and what doesn't as RBS did (although I personally think there's not only one simple reason men feel the way they do, but a myriad of them which may differ from man to man), I'm okay with it. I just react badly to This Is The Certain Truth About A Group I Don't Belong To.

<mod> Whether you are in the right or not, the forum rules about respectful language apply to everyone who wants to post here. I'm going to ask you a second time to be more mindful of your phrasing</mod>

I've got to admit this puzzles me O_o
What was wrong with my reply to you?

[celette482]

Not sure I totally understood all that, but...are you saying we (men) tend to have a sort of halfway-developed theory of mind (or something similar), such that we understand women think differently but don't understand the actual thought process well enough to accurately predict their perceptions or trust in such a prediction? It's an interesting thought, and one that I expect will percolate when I'm less tired. Might be a while, but I'll try to come back to this again.

I'm very damned sure we agree re: education rights and other general equality ideals (see 9; the main thing I tend to disagree with others here on is what the status quo actually looks like), so the only thing that's giving me "feelings" is the suspicion that several of my identity-groups have just been called stupid.

If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

Stupid isn't the word for it. It's a thing that needs practice. It's a skill that needs developing. The young children cannot do it at all, but the baseline is simply "Do you understand that someone else only knows what they see?"

The more advanced skill is about emotion. Can you understand how someone might have different emotions than you, even if they are responding to what appears to be the same stimulus. It requires more effort. I think men CAN do it, I simply think that for a lot of men, there isn't much incentive to bother (because male povs, especially white male pov, are essentially default) and they don't have a lot of chances to practice (again, because there isn't a lot of media through the eyes of non-white men).

EDIT to add: theory of the mind doesn't make you a social wizard either. In some sense, it makes it worse, because you have the ability to come up with all SORTS of explanations for why a person is behaving the way he or she is, and when you have social anxiety, the last thing you need is more possibilities to ruminate on. Where it is helpful is when you are having a direct discussion with someone about their emotions or subjective experiences.

[nearly_takuan]

Stupid isn't the word for it. It's a thing that needs practice. It's a skill that needs developing. The young children cannot do it at all, but the baseline is simply "Do you understand that someone else only knows what they see?"

The more advanced skill is about emotion. Can you understand how someone might have different emotions than you, even if they are responding to what appears to be the same stimulus. It requires more effort. I think men CAN do it, I simply think that for a lot of men, there isn't much incentive to bother (because male povs, especially white male pov, are essentially default) and they don't have a lot of chances to practice (again, because there isn't a lot of media through the eyes of non-white men).

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence. The only thing I can agree with you on is that my chances to practice are limited to some very specific contexts.

EDIT to add: theory of the mind doesn't make you a social wizard either. In some sense, it makes it worse, because you have the ability to come up with all SORTS of explanations for why a person is behaving the way he or she is, and when you have social anxiety, the last thing you need is more possibilities to ruminate on. Where it is helpful is when you are having a direct discussion with someone about their emotions or subjective experiences.

Right, because none of us poor ignorant men have ever been through the "why did she do that what did she mean what is she thinking what did I do wrong" thought-pattern multiple times a day for consecutive weeks. Nope. Definitely not a thing for us, because we're Privileged. Plus it's not like that would be so terrible for me anyway. Social anxiety? Definitely don't have that, because to be officially impaired requires diagnosis, and diagnosis requires a professional, and a professional requires payment, so I've been mentally and physically in absolutely fucking perfect shape for the last ten years or so. Go me.

But direct discussions about emotions, yeah, those happen all the time, 'cause my friends and I, we're such sharing caring well-adjusted individuals. It's too bad I don't have a fully-formed Theory of Mind to help me do that even better.

[celette482]

Of course, you can also wilfully misunderstand people too.

[nearly_takuan]

I asked if I misunderstood earlier. You responded by saying stupid isn't the word, but what is the word? Ignorant? Inadequate? Incapable? No, wait, we can do it, but it's just so much effort, what could possibly motivate us to try?

Your elaboration on your point only strengthened the implication that men and nerds are, as an entire class, either unwilling or uninterested or just de facto unable to know how other people feel and think and how to respond. In my estimation, you haven't done a great job convincing me stupid isn't the word for what you're saying about me/us; I invite you to give it another try.

Do you understand why that I'm finding what you've been saying so far pretty insulting?

ETA: Human language being as imprecise as it is, there may very well not be a word for what you've been attempting to communicate, but I've been going over your last two posts repeatedly trying to find a more charitable interpretation and I just can't find any meaning that doesn't carry a very strong "less-than" vibe.

[reboot]

MOD
I have a request because this thread is kind of getting tense.

For those of us presenting theories or ideas from research, but without direct experience of being male, please couch all theorizing with strong speculative words. For example, "I wonder if", " Do you think it might", "Research shows [whatever research is showing], which may play a part", "I am guessing", etc. It needs to be made explicit that these are hypothesis/theories because no one actually knows with certainty and that you are not presenting " The Answer to All the Questions ". It has been implied in these posts, but the message is not coming through clearly enough

/MOD

And now for my theory on something Dan mentioned about the difference between a woman being creepy and recovering from her creepiness and a man being afraid of ever being creepy. This is nebulous because I came up with it at about 4 am, so bear with me. It is not well thought out yet and could be totally wrong.

Many of the men who posted here said that they feared being creepy because it would cause "egregious harm" as a woman who has been creepy on occasion, I feared being annoying, being disliked, getting on someone's nerves, etc but not of harming the men (and women - creepy behavior can occur in platonic interactions). My theory is that it is the lack of fear caused by a woman being creepy vs a man. The creeping by women is more akin to a gnat buzzing around an ear vs a man creeping that might be closer to....I dunno a growling dog? (do not love this analogy - improvements welcome).

An example that I literally still am blushing over 22 years later (seriously my cheeks are warm!) might illustrate my point. I was at a party in college and there was this man I was really into. In my eagerness to get him to like me, I pretty much tailed him around the party, interjecting myself in his conversations, and making an ass of myself all night. I knew he wanted me to take a hike but (like a creep) decided if he just spent more time with me he would realize I was an awesome person (*headdesk*). Outcome was that no he did not think I was awesome, he thought I was annoying as hell, embarrassing and kind of creepy (a message communicated to that social circle*). However, at no time was he afraid of me, afraid of any repercussions of rejection, or of me causing him any harm. I was never threatening or scary to him. Now, the belief that women are not harmful and are not capable of causing harm is inaccurate, but was (and likely is) common enough that it did not come into play. The only bad outcome he feared from me is that I would prevent him from meeting women at the party and that I made his night boring. This lack of fear (misplaced or not) in the creeped upon makes women acting creepy much lower stakes and thus is an inherently different experience for socially awkward women as compared to men.

*I did partially recover in that social circle but it is OT. If anyone is interested in creepiness damage control, I can start a new thread

[azazel]

Many of the men who posted here said that they feared being creepy because it would cause "egregious harm" as a woman who has been creepy on occasion, I feared being annoying, being disliked, getting on someone's nerves, etc but not of harming the men (and women - creepy behavior can occur in platonic interactions). My theory is that it is the lack of fear caused by a woman being creepy vs a man. The creeping by women is more akin to a gnat buzzing around an ear vs a man creeping that might be closer to....I dunno a growling dog? (do not love this analogy - improvements welcome).

So much yes!

Funny, I couldn't articulate my own theory very well, but here you are stealing words from my mouth.
I also agree it's quite insulting to women that they're on one hand delicate flowers, and on the other hand considered completely incapable of doing a man harm, but that's society for ya.

[Sponsored content]