Guys – don’t shout at women

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 161173 wrote:

Cool. That’s all I’m saying (except I don’t assume percentages).

I assume that at least 15% of the time, conscious irony DOES work on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely no one claims that every individual instance ever of a man behaving aggressively or condescendingly to a woman is motivated specifically by sexism. That is a straw man. And since we can’t read minds, if we are only allowed to discuss sexist behavior if we have absolute proof of the specific motivation of every individual action, that means that we are never allowed to discuss sexist behavior. When discussions like this come up and multiple men chime in to say “but, but, but, not every single instance of X is sexist so you can’t claim sexism!!” (which pretty much ALWAYS happens) you’re essentially just telling us to go sit down and shut up. Sure, most men will admit that there’s sexism in the world, and sure, most will agree that — in theory– it would be good if there’s less sexism in the world, but hey first let’s make sure we understand what’s really important, which is that no man, ever, for any reason, should be unfairly accused of sexism.

Yes, some cyclists are reckless scofflaws. But don’t y’all get tired of having that pointed out repeatedly over and over Every.Single.Time there is a discussion somewhere about car/bike safety and society’s overall attitude towards cycling? Yes, sometimes men get unfairly accused of sexism, and no not all men are sexist, and women already know this. Is it absolutely necessary for you to point that out to us over and over again Every.Single.Time there is a discussion about sexism and society’s overall attitude towards women?

[baiskeli]

@Amalitza 161175 wrote:

Absolutely no one claims that every individual instance ever of a man behaving aggressively or condescendingly to a woman is motivated specifically by sexism. That is a straw man.

That was my perception of some of the claims made.

And since we can’t read minds, if we are only allowed to discuss sexist behavior if we have absolute proof of the specific motivation of every individual action, that means that we are never allowed to discuss sexist behavior.

That’s a straw man.

Yes, you can’t read minds. Exactly. It is unfair to accuse someone of something without evidence.

That doesn’t mean you can’t discuss sexism. Just that you can’t accuse someone of sexism just because they yelled at you. That would be claiming the right to do what you described above – assuming every instance is motivated by sexism – even if you don’t do that.

When discussions like this come up and multiple men chime in to say “but, but, but, not every single instance of X is sexist so you can’t claim sexism!!” (which pretty much ALWAYS happens) you’re essentially just telling us to go sit down and shut up.

NO. NOT AT ALL.

Sure, most men will admit that there’s sexism in the world, and sure, most will agree that — in theory– it would be good if there’s less sexism in the world, but hey first let’s make sure we understand what’s really important, which is that no man, ever, for any reason, should be unfairly accused of sexism.

Well, yes, men who think sexism is a really really bad thing are going to be more concerned about false accusations of sexism. Don’t you see how that’s a good thing? It means they think being sexist is a horrible thing.

This is a false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between speaking out against sexism and avoiding false accusations. In fact, I think it is important to do both, for credibility’s sake. There is absolutely no implication that it is more important to avoid false accusations than to speak out against sexism.

Yes, some cyclists are reckless scofflaws. But don’t y’all get tired of having that pointed out repeatedly over and over Every.Single.Time there is a discussion somewhere about car/bike safety and society’s overall attitude towards cycling? Yes, sometimes men get unfairly accused of sexism, and no not all men are sexist, and women already know thisit absolutely necessary for you to point that out to us over and over again Every.Single.Time there is a discussion about sexism and society’s overall attitude towards women?

I don’t point it out every single time. I don’t ever point it out unless I see someone who doesn’t seem to already know it, which I saw here. If you think I saw something that wasn’t there, fine.

I’m glad we all agree though. Now we can move on.

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 161174 wrote:

I assume that at least 15% of the time, conscious irony DOES work on the internet.

Overt and repeated stating of exactly what you mean doesn’t even seem to work sometimes, so I can’t do conscious irony now.

I think the most enlightening thing about discussions like this is how even when we devote so many words to it, somehow we seem to have massive misunderstandings. I see people reading the exact opposite of what I’m saying, and seeing the exact opposite of what I read in other people’s words. It’s like we speak different languages. I think that’s a big part of the problem, the communication. And when we try to fix it by talking more, sometimes that works but sometimes it just leads to frustration and anger. And I can’t help noticing that it’s similar to what happens in personal relationships sometimes too.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 161177 wrote:

Just that you can’t accuse someone of sexism just because they yelled at you.

NO ONE IS DOING THIS. And yet, you continue to claim someone is. Why?

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 161181 wrote:

NO ONE IS DOING THIS. And yet, you continue to claim someone is. Why?

I am not interested in a long discussion about why you read words one way and I read them another, etc. That would take all day and probably get nowhere anyway.

If you think nobody said that, then great. Everyone here agrees that yelling at women is often, but not always, sexism. We’re finished.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 161183 wrote:

I am not interested in a long discussion about why you read words one way and I read them another, etc. That would take all day and probably get nowhere anyway.

If you think nobody said that, then great. Everyone here agrees that yelling at women is often, but not always, sexism. We’re finished.

What you’re not seeing is this:

You seem to have read this:

Quote:

Here are a few simple ways to avoid perpetuating systemic gender discrimination while riding your bike:

Don’t shout stuff at women.

And understood that to mean that

Quote:

Men who yell at women are sexist.

Then you went out of your way (multiple times, in multiple fora) to say

Quote:

NOT ALL MEN WHO YELL AT WOMEN ARE SEXIST.

In other words, a bunch of people are making completely reasonable points about ways to avoid perpetuating systemic gender discrimination while riding your bike, and you’re yelling at them.

That does translate to shut up and sit down, which is not helpful to the conversation.

[baiskeli]

The words you quoted are not the only words involved. But again, I’m not interested in this discussion. Nor do I accept anyone speaking for me or putting thoughts in my head or telling me how I read words. You cannot read my mind. I only speak for myself. Reasonable people can disagree. We all apparently agree about everything important, so there’s no point in belaboring how we got there. Let’s move on.

[SolarBikeCar]

Generally, it is not helpful to pit one group against another when the desire is to fix a social ill.

I agree it is not good when people yell rude things and when it occurs it affects us all even if I am a man and this most often happens to women.

Changing the tone from “Men don’t yell” to “Don’t Be Rude” would make me more receptive to helping fix the problem.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@SolarBikeCar 161191 wrote:

Changing the tone from “Men don’t yell” to “Don’t Be Rude” would make me more receptive to helping fix the problem.

Wanna know how I know you’re part of the problem?

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 161187 wrote:

The words you quoted are not the only words involved. But again, I’m not interested in this discussion. Nor do I accept anyone speaking for me or putting thoughts in my head or telling me how I read words. You cannot read my mind. I only speak for myself. Reasonable people can disagree. We all apparently agree about everything important, so there’s no point in belaboring how we got there. Let’s move on.

I’ve asked what words you think mean otherwise. If you don’t want to engage, fine. If you think you’re 100% right, fine. But you don’t see it yet. Sorry.

[baiskeli]

Reasonable people can disagree.

[Emm]

@SolarBikeCar 161191 wrote:

Generally, it is not helpful to pit one group against another when the desire is to fix a social ill.

Except sometimes there is a truth behind the fact that some groups are both more at fault, and (therefor) more able to enact change that can fix a problem. So it makes sense to target messaging to that group.

I’m sorry you haven’t been able to reflect on the fact that in reality, men do things that make women feel unsafe or unwelcome on the trail. Some on purpose, some by accident. But the fact is, those actions are still done, and men should take responsibility for changing their behavior. This article, and most of this thread focused on ways we can fix those accidental (and occasionally) on purpose things we do that make others feel unsafe, like not following to close, and asking if people need help in ways that aren’t disrespectful. It doesn’t mean the women among us wont find this information helpful too, but there is a solid and good reason to target this type of message to men.

Last night while riding home I got to reflect on this more than I would have wanted. A man tailed me VERY close for over a mile on the MVT. I began instinctively thinking about places that were public that I could pull over to get him away from me since I was getting nervous–he was ON the back of my bike for much longer than it would take to pass me. Luckily, he peeled off around Royal St so I didn’t have to, but I was actually beginning to become nervous since it was beginning to get dark, and the trail was empty. The fact that I had to consider modifying my commute because I was scared, even though I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an accidental/unaware scare on his part, is the type of thing men need to be aware of so they can really consider the effects their actions have.

[lordofthemark]

Rereading the WABA article, it is mostly speaking about general tendencies, and better behavior. The only place where I can see individuals called out is the intro, about the recent experiences of a particular woman. I did not read that as making a case against the particular male cyclists involved, but as serving as an example and illustration of the kinds of things the article went on to talk about. Plus, a lot of people feel real world anecdotes make writing of this kind better. Is it POSSIBLE that neither of the male cyclists who did the yelling that was called out were sexist – sure. Is it likely – no. Does it matter to the point the article was making? No, IMO. I think people are getting stuck on that.

I mean I often discuss behavior I see by drivers on the road, and attribute it to windshield perspective, or lack of familiarity with biking. Is it POSSIBLE that those incidents actually involve a driver who is a also a sometime bike commuter, but is just an all around jerk? Sure it is POSSIBLE. Is it possible that its actually someone who IS on the way to do open heart surgery, but is running late? Sure, it is POSSIBLE. Since I am not convicting someone in a court of law for “windshield perspective” I think its okay to go with the probabilities, and whatever policy point I was making.

There also is a tendency many have to personalize discussions that are about society or policy. So , I might say “we need to decrease the commute mode share for autos in Alexandria” And in many circles someone is sure to respond with “I have three kids I need to drop off at different schools, and I work in Chantilly! We can’t all get where we need to on transit or by bike! Don’t take away my freedom, hipster elitist!” And I am like, WTF? Do I really relate to the world THAT oddly, that I didn’t see that as the logical takeaway from what I said? I do see that kind of thinking in many of these discussions of discrimination and privilege. Sometimes its the fault of folks overly making the personal political – but sometimes its people making the political, personal.

[SolarBikeCar]

@Emm 161197 wrote:

Except sometimes there is a truth behind the fact that some groups are both more at fault, and (therefor) more able to enact change that can fix a problem. So it makes sense to target messaging to that group.

When you have a demographics that is the primary source of a social ill you definitely target them.

What I hear with “Men don’t yell” is not an attempt to target the message to a demographic to reach the few that cause the social ill, but an attempt to demonize the whole demographic.

The reluctance to accept that feedback as legitimate is telling.

[Author]

Posts