The Rabbit Hole

You are the only person who is ever going to stand up for yourself.

Word.

From:

ivy03.livejournal.com

I'm not sure about the linear link between how girls reject guys and this guy killing people--the blogger seems to be using that to underscore a point emotionally in a way that feels a bit simplified and manipulative to me. But, this is something that I've of course seen a hundred times before. Most notable in "The Gift of Fear," where the author points out how incredibly stupid it is to ignore your fear response to a situation because you don't want to be rude. He also points out how many of the ways women reject men ("I'm not looking for a relationship right now") just encourage more aggressive stalking.

But anyway. This just makes me think about a friend of mine (who you do know, not on lj). At a party, a few years ago, a guy was chatting her up (badly) and she eventually just started a conversation with someone else to get him to stop talking to her. (You don't know this guy.) He immediately started telling everyone that she was an ice queen. Now, I've talked to this guy as well. In fact, I've sat through him doing Dave Chapelle impressions for over a half an hour while the smile on my face turned to rictus and I looked desperately for escape. It is impossible to get out of a conversation with this guy without being rude--he simply will not shut up or accept a polite excuse. So the problem here is not that my friend is an "ice queen," a statement that followed her around for awhile, but that he does not pick up on social cues of disinterest.

From:

Is it unfair to make a causal connection between killers and pick-up artists? Yes. There is a crucial step past general dislike, distrust, and outright hatred of women that a killer takes, that of deciding that the people around him are so unworthy as to justify their being killed and not merely belittled or ignored. It takes a good psychotic break to make that leap. That doesn't happen just because you've heard a hundred PUAs say women is bitches.

But are there similar buildings up of resentment between the two short of that snapping point? Absolutely. PUAs treat other human beings as objects. Objectifying leads to lack of sympathy and understanding of other people as autonomous beings. Again, you have to make a leap between not caring about those beings and actively considering them insignificant enough that you can kill them. But the fact that there're so many who encourage that lack of empathy is scary because the more you encourage it, the likelier you are to reach someone who will take it to a bad end. Just a numbers game, really. So not all PUAs are killers, but the more men listen to that shit, the more likely that it will reach people who really, really need not to get sent those signals.

I know someone like the man you mention, and I gave up being civil a long time ago. It's a tricky situation. On the one hand, you learn how to be rude. On the other, you can end up so defensive that you might overreact to people who are behaving in a similar bent who will back off with less effort that you'd have to put into the rudest guys. It's so hard to figure out how to navigate that. That preconceived training sabotages you is only more frustrating.

From:

oblvndrgn.livejournal.com

I'm hardly a student of feminist blogs, but some of these provoke an uncomfortable response similar to what ivy describes above. I can completely agree with the author's conclusion (Women who respond 'rudely' should be commended, and pick-up artists should be condemned, rather than the other way around) but the association with the brutal crime feels forced and maybe even manipulative.

In any case, I'm the first champion of honesty (thou-hast-gained-an-eighth kind of honesty), so I'm all for trying to peel away at the sense of rudeness. I think I would have had a better time in college if someone I asked out had, instead of saying 'You're a nice guy, but..', offered up 'You seem really quite pleasant but maybe you need to buy your clothes at a real store Mr Kohls-sales-rack' or whatever. No one should ever feel forced to put more work into something than they want to, but boy would it be convenient if someone is feeling especially charitable. This goes double for break-ups.

I also don't think you need to listen to some "lady-getting guru" or have a kneejerk reaction to other men to get the nice-guys-fail mindset. Every guy who is even a little polite has had that cute friend that they eventually fell for, were rejected by, and then proceeded to go out with someone who would cheat on them, or not show up to dates, or some kind of jerk behavior. From a more feminist standpoint, one might do more to evaporate the stereotype by reiterating to men that MOST men are jerks from time to time, so anyone who seems nice at first might become one rather than that the jerkiness is what's attractive in the first place.

(off-topic: LJ's spellcheck picked up 'kneejerk' as a misspelled word, which is true but I'm too lazy to add the hyphen, and suggested the n-word as an acceptable spelling correction. LJ Spellcheck, you are a bad man)

From:

See my comments to

ivy03 about the correlative but not causative relation between pick-up artists and crazed gunmen. Essentially, the socialization is the same--learning to hate women to avoid addressing one's own problems--but the killers take it to different degrees. The problem is that the more ideologies that promote hating on other people take hold, the more likely it is that someone unstable is going to follow that thinking and act out. (Think of the people who shoot abortion providers--they're listening to the hateful rhetoric and they just take it to the end that the saner folk won't admit to sort of wanting.)

I don't think there's any advantage in calling most men jerks. What I think we should do instead is emphasize that women are people. The more like a person you consider the object of your affection to be, the less likely you are to treat them like, well, an object. This goes both ways, of course. Treat men like they're worth addressing and/or dismissing when the situation calls (and not let fears of "rudeness" stop you), and the men who are worth it get the message. (The ones that aren't will end up on the wrong side of a ruder put-down and then maybe they'll learn something. If they're not crazed killers, of course.)

From:

kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com

I dunno, I see a little bit of a contradiction between "niceness is a positive characteristic" (which I agree with) and a broad-brush call for bluntness, which is appropriate to molesters and public masturbators, etc., but not, necessarily, to people who approach politely. If a woman isn't interested in a guy, there's probably nothing he can do that will change her mind, so there probably isn't any "helpful advice" she can give him. It'd just make the guy feel worse. I don't think anything a woman said to Sodini would have stopped him from his homicidal path.

I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the undercurrents of the "nice guy" discussion. (As I commented on this thread.) I hate to see a crazy like Sodini become a poster-boy for middle-aged single guys, so I feel a little push-back is necessary.

From:

I think the mistake is to confuse a nice guy with a Nice GuyTM. Nice guys are just all around decent sorts, and attraction may or may not be involved with them, but they're good people. Nice GuysTM are those who are kind to a point and always with some agenda. You know these people in realms other than romance--the ass-kissers who manage to fake at being really interested in a person if only to score points with them. When it comes to romance, the Nice GuyTM is definitely interested in scoring, but it's not because he likes the other person. It's because he feels he is owed that person. He bought her a drink; ergo, she should feel like she has to blow him. When this doesn't happen, Nice GuysTM blame the woman for not feeling obligated to return favors to them for being "nice." Because they weren't being nice but were being deceptive--offering a drink as an expectation rather than a freebie is to disguise your intent--women treated them like the jerks they were but they lie to themselves to believe it was their "niceness" being rebuffed.

Sodini is a poster boy for the Nice GuyTM, not the single middle-aged guy. There are Nice GuysTM at every age anyway.

From:

kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com

Oh, I understand the Nice Guy^TM is a jerk, but unfortunately people don't walk around with that trademark on their heads! The pick-up artist ideology needs to get slammed, but measures that make it harder for men to be single will just give the PUAs more of an audience.

From:

What was your screen name on the TNC thread? I followed that thread, and am probably inclined to agree with you.

From:

kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com

I used my real name, it should be the first name at the link.

From:

gryphonrose.livejournal.com

I have to agree with oblvndrgn insofar as I've always preferred honesty--I'd rather know someone's not interested, and the real reason why, then get some vague dismissal. Being direct is a good thing, and should be encouraged in all people, though of course it's also important to know when something is inappropriate to say or do. Slapping and cursing at the person who manhandles you on the subway, however, is definitely appropriate in my book.

From:

Really? Would guys really appreciate total honesty? I think it would maybe hurt a little to be told "Uh, you're much less attractive than I thought you were from your photo and I am actually getting really creepy vibes from you."....

From:

I think a lot of creepy folk aren't self-aware and some pointers would spare a lot of people a lot of grief. That said, there are plenty of creeps who'll go off on such commentary, so you have to be really careful.

From:

gryphonrose.livejournal.com

I cannot speak for other guys. I prefer honesty, though. Better to get it out right at the start. And maybe that would make people stop and think, "hm, I wonder how I can make myself less creepy and more attractive?" Sure, it would sting, but it might be the wake-up call someone needs.

From:

I have had such an experience, though not as extreme.

I met up with a guy from an online dating site. Now, I'm already a bit nervous about meeting random people for dates, so I psyched myself up for it by thinking it would just be casual, we would get to know each other better, and I would see if I was attracted to him.

He on the other hand had a completely different impression and seemed to think it was a Date date. Worse still, I think he thought we were like Dating (my brain goes wtf, how could I make that decision having never met you and only seen a short online profile...)

Anyway, he seemed incapable of reading my pyshical signals, from hugging me at the beginning, to trying to hold my hand, to sitting way too close to me even when I tried to move slightly away (y halo thar personal space).

He even asked me at one point what I had expected and if he was what I had expected, and I couldn't even respond. I think precisely because of the reasons you gave - I didn't want to be rude. Also because I am naturally confrontation phobic, and was extremely embarassed at the time.

The whole time I was getting creepy vibes from him and wanted to go, but couldn't think of a way. At one point somehow we got onto the topic of abortion and he said something like "I could never forgive a woman who aborted my child",and I was pretty creeped out: HIS child? Ugh.

So at the end of the 'date', he asked if he could have a kiss, and I said yes because I didn't know how to say no. It was just a brief peck on the lips, but I still felt gross afterwards, like why could I not just say I didn't want to, why did I feel like I owed it to him because I had somehow led him on during the date by not expressing my true feelings. I had even agreed to go to some barbecue of his, which I retracted later in the email I sent to clarify things (I am such a coward).

I think it was an unsual example, because I think he was a little odd. When I said during lunch that I was also meeting up with other guys from the site (what is the etiquette with these things?), because I saw it as a casual get to know people thing, he said something like is there any way I could convince you otherwise. And in his reply to my email he angrily said something like "you don't dump someone in the middle of a date" or something like that. Uh, dump? I wasn't even aware you thought we were together. *shudder* One of the most awkward and embarassing experiences of my life.

From:

Anyway, he seemed incapable of reading my pyshical signals, from hugging me at the beginning, to trying to hold my hand, to sitting way too close to me even when I tried to move slightly away (y halo thar personal space).

I've dated a number of girls from online dating sites. They've all had different expectations, from "Don't touch me, we're just talking at this point," to "You didn't kiss me, so I didn't think you liked me." We can't read minds!

From:

Not minds, but physical signals, yes. If I drop your hand after you try to hold mine, you can be fairly sure that I don't want that sort of contact just yet.

And I just don't get people who don't understand personal space. It happens when I'm at work too. A customer is standing way too close to me, so I move back, and then they move closer again. WTF people. I moved away from you for a reason...

From:

I mean, if a girl is sitting closer to you, or touching your arm or something, you are probably right that she wants you to kiss her.

But if she is moving away from you when you try to get closer, that's a pretty clear signal. And he just did. not. get it.

From:

It wasn't so much that he did those things, but that he kept doing them, even when I was moving away from him, or trying to give signals that I did not want it.

And yeah it was partly me not being able to honestly tell him I was not interested, but I thought he would be able to pick up on some physical signals, I think most guys would.

From:

I think most guys would.

You think wrong. Most guys don't read subtle signals, or if they do, read them as fliring hesitance. If you want a guy to leave you alone, just tell him. It's much more effective.

From:

Yeah I will try to be more direct in future.

But they weren't really subtle signals. I think if you are actively dropping their hand, or moving further away from them, it sends the signal that you do not want to sit that close to them. Why would I be moving away from you if I wanted you to sit closer?

From:

Playing hard to get? Testing a guy's interest? Seriously, there are so many weird games that people play in dating, that even if you think a signal is perfectly clear, the guy may have a completely different interpretation--possibly caused by another girl whose similar signal meant something different. The only clear signal form of violence is just saying no.

From:

Argh, that's: "The only clear signal short of violence is just saying no."

From:

Then I think there is something wrong with those girls, playing pathetic games and mixing up what should be a fairly straightforward message.

(This reminds me of Lizzie Bennett and Mr Collins and those 'elegant females' who reject a man to increase his love... XD )

Yes, I need to be more assertive, but I guess this is the inherent problem that

trinityvixen was talking about - many women feel that they can't do that, for fear of being 'rude'....

From:

Exactly, screwed coming or going.

Incidentally I don't think

edgehopper intended to be reproachful--in your case I think it's clear the guy was a loser--but it's just these assumptions about women playing games that make our lives harder. A little bit of honesty would be good all around.

From:

That's correct. If you give clear physical signals that you don't like him, he should notice. But some of the minor things--starting the date with a hug, for example--are, for some women, expected behavior. You give the guy a fairer chance when you say something like, "Sorry, I don't like casual hugging--let's start talking first." He may (probably not this guy, but some others) have just hugged you because he thought you expected it.

From:

Bear in mind, this works both ways. Assuming women are playing some game that necessitates violating certain boundaries in order to be sure is generally a bad thing. It's why pick-up artists exist, to a degree--to counteract those tricksy females. Are there some? Sure, just like there are some creeps who won't take a hint. But I'd guarantee that any woman who won't make you certain of her affection is probably either guarding herself for a reason or playing games. If the former, you'd do yourself a disservice if you didn't find out why she was being wary before making her more uncomfortable (communication!); if the latter, well, best you not go after that one.

From:

But I'd guarantee that any woman who won't make you certain of her affection is probably either guarding herself for a reason or playing games. If the former, you'd do yourself a disservice if you didn't find out why she was being wary before making her more uncomfortable (communication!); if the latter, well, best you not go after that one.

Not quite the point--the problem is that game-related or not, women have different expectations in a world where there's no clear code for courtship. Regardless of how much the woman likes you, some won't let you hold their hands on a first date, some will happily take you back to their apartment. This is fine, except that then these same women will assume that their dates are supposed to magically know their expectations, and assume that the guy is sex-obsessed if he moves too fast, or isn't interested if he moves too slow (because women typically read far too much into signals, to the same extent that men typically read far too little into them).

The point I'm trying to make is, if you're going to date a guy, and he doesn't do what you think is the expected action, try not to read it as creepy/uninterested/sex-obsessed, and try, you know, talking. Or even better, if you give the guy some clear explanation of what behavior you expect/allow on a first date (e.g., "I don't kiss on the first date,") you'll find that at least the good guys will adapt appropriately. The bad ones...well, make up an emergency and escape :)

From:

This is fine, except that then these same women will assume that their dates are supposed to magically know their expectations, and assume that the guy is sex-obsessed if he moves too fast, or isn't interested if he moves too slow (because women typically read far too much into signals, to the same extent that men typically read far too little into them).

You're not really arguing with me. I'm saying that the key is communication. End of story. Which you appear to agree with. What I take issue with is your very troubling assertion that women in general refuse to be communicative and are therefore "playing games." What I suggested in posting this article is less that women play games and more that they have been conditioned not to speak their minds lest they walk away from every encounter where they do so labeled as uppity bitches.

I know for a fact that many of the women you know have absolutely no problem telling it like it is, and you must know this. I find it curious that you would accuse women of sitting around waiting for men to read their minds. None of those same women you know would be like that. Surely you realize that this is a heinous stereotype and one that is frequently used by Nice GuysTM to excuse their being rude to women who, out of politeness, don't come right out and call them obnoxious creeps.

From:

What I suggested in posting this article is less that women play games and more that they have been conditioned not to speak their minds lest they walk away from every encounter where they do so labeled as uppity bitches.

I'm not accusing (most) women of playing games--obviously some do, because some people are jerks. And yes, none of the women I'm friends with would do that. But I've dated women who have, and you're not going to get very far in insisting that they don't exist.

Meanwhile, my point is not that women are playing games, but that in a society without clear rules for courtship, there are no fixed expectations for specifics of proper dating behavior beyond "don't use force". This puts the initiating player in a relationship in an awkward spot, and let's face it, the vast majority of the time that's the guy. If a woman has a particular idea of what she thinks the expected first date behavior is, and then holds it against a guy for having a different expectation which is often based on experience with other women with different expectation, it kind of sucks for the guy.

Take, for example, the first contact of a date. A man has no way of knowing if the woman is a casual hugger or not; and probably is ambivalent about the subject. But I've dated women who expected a hug and felt rejected for not getting one, and also women who felt that that was too personal for a first contact. Whichever choice I make, about half the time I'll be wrong. Through no fault of my own, while trying to be properly respectful and polite.

It's not about game playing, but about a lack of empathy. I'm pointing out women's lack of empathy here in expecting mind-reading (again, not something you or most if not all of my friends would do, but certainly something that many women do), because (1) you've quite thoroughly pointed out the lack of empathy on the male side already, and (2) I don't date men, so I have no experience that that form of thoughtless behavior.

From:

there are no fixed expectations for specifics of proper dating behavior beyond "don't use force"

Uh, I don't think "anything short of force" is the limit of rules for proper dating behavior. "Avoid being a dick" is a pretty easy one to follow without this "I'm not a mind reader!" stuff cropping up.

From:

It sounds like a perfectly awful experience, and we've all had them at one time or another, women and men. The thing is, men can give women the brush off without guilt. Women are conditioned to respond as you did--constantly giving this unworthy person the benefit of the doubt and letting him take advantage. It's gross and it needs to stop and I'm so sorry that your date went to that level.

Also, when it comes to these people, if you don't feel safe doing the dumping in person, dumping by e-mail is perfectly acceptable. It's not cowardly to protect yourself against someone who is obviously not following the signals you're giving off.

From:

Also, I think this clip from the Big Bang Theory with Howard and Summer Glau illustrates this 'don't be rude' idea quite well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtSD4oU2Ro&NR=1

From:

Yes, "Don't be like Howard" is almost always a good rule :) CBS Mondays does tend to span the realm of male dating behavior.

From:

cbreakr.livejournal.com

The issues leading to this sort of "Nice Guy" behavior are set in place well before they start getting rejected in bars. Just as bullying in schoolchildren often sprouts from a feeling of vulnerability, these men clearly haven't learned any way of defining their own value other than through their sexuality and so lash out when anything pushes back. The idea that pressing that issue directly with unstable people doesn't sound like a solution.

These aren't cases of sexism through egotism, but sexism as by-product of defense mechanism. The same ideas won't work to combat it. These strong irrational responses point to something that defines a person's sense of self being threatened, like insisting that god doesn't exist to a priest who's started losing his faith. These kind of knee-jerk responses are along the lines of compulsion and we should probably treat it as a mental illness. Unfortunately, getting help in the form of some strong CBT is not much of an option in the real world.

When dealing with someone as unstable as Sodini, there unfortunately aren't many options other than professional help. He's pathological; there isn't a way to have control within normal social bounds. If he'd been turned down more harshly, he would have reacted more harshly, either towards the woman involved or towards himself - leading to a more vulnerability, leading to more anger as a cover, leading to more intense responses later on. Psychologically healthy people respond to consequence, psychologically unhealthy people will retreat further into whatever mental structures they've created for themselves and continue their twisted fantasy.

Somewhere along the line, these guys weren't getting the real truth about life, and I put that burden on early development and the responsibility on our educational system, the media, and official policy towards mental illness. Is there any reason why children are taught more about the technical facts of life than the most important part of their lives: their own minds and emotions and those of others? Is it even remotely defensible for children to be bombarded with rampant materialism and unrealistic perceptions of musclemen and models that no one in their real lives can compare to? Does mental illness deserve the stigma it has and the pill-based non-involved profiteering response on the part of big medicine? It all leads to a lack of emotional grounding on the part of Americans, which pushes out to its extremes in events like the waste of a life that is George Sodini. Too often people are just never taught how to care about people.

People like Sodini have already demonstrated that they aren't willing or able to take that step back and review their worldview. A general increase in negative emotions being thrown around in the form of harsh-yet-honest rejections isn't a way to help stave off future negative behavior from those who most need the correction (which is not to say that women shouldn't respond more vocally when they feel threatened, but drawing a direct comparison between being groped on the subway and being hit on by a creep at a bar and implying the connection to murder is not realistic... aside from my disagreement with the whole "broken windows" approach to security in general that lies behind the conclusions the article draws...), but it is a way to exaggerate already negative events.

From: