Professional Documents
Culture Documents
659 Thoughts On
659 Thoughts On
659 Thoughts On
1. Gulliver says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:08 AM
I think a lot of the disconnect on the prior thread was due to people getting the impression
(or willfully misunderstanding) that someone being creeped out by you means you must
leave the party, bus, town or planet you share with them. All it means is that you must
stop interacting with them, and that you may only resume interacting with them at their
pleasure. If you fail to respect their right not to interact with you, that’s when you get the
boot.
2. scyllacat says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:13 AM
I think Gulliver is right. But my therapist had a hard time getting my mind around this
idea, so I can see why it can be challenging (using MYself as an anecdotal example).
Thanks for this, John. REALLY. I’ve been trying to figure out what to do about creeps,
assholes, and bullies for years now. You’re awesome.
I can sort of see that, but I also think representatives of a dominant culture refusing to
change to accommodate a minority is sort of universal.
The guys John is seeing claiming they’re offended are similar to white folks in the US
who’re uncomfortable with criticism of endemic racism from non-whites, straight people
who get hackles up about QUILTBAG folks “shoving it down our throats” (usually by
existing outside of a closet and speaking up) and so on.
They don’t want to have to think about complicated issues of oppressions, and the
inherent complicity that they have in that oppression. It’s part not wanting to feel like a
bad person when they don’t think they did anything wrong, and part feeling like someone
is attacking something they identify as a part of.
This is usually cause (IMO) by an inability to separate criticism of one single action IN a
culture with ravening hordes seeking to destroy everything about that culture, salt the
earth, and have a party on the ashes.
Why? Because once in a while an individual that culture has offended will inevitably get
angry enough to wish, in public, that the culture be burned to the ground. And suddenly
that person becomes a representative of all criticism, just opposite from the way that a
creeper is painted as a lone-grope-man, not at all representative of this culture and HOW
DARE YOU YOU VILE… FEMINIST!
That, in a very large nutshell, is what I think is motivating the reaction to ‘point 2’.
5. Jess says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:22 AM
I’ve been following along on this and the original post for several days. I hope that a few
people who learn something from your observations. I have a lot of thoughts about this,
but I’m not sure they’re unique enough to share here in an efficient manner. Thanks for
your words.
6. Chang, now with more Klebin 3000 says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:32 AM
OY VEY. Some people need to get a hold of themselves. Were the complainants all
white males, too? The saying that you can’t make people think what you want them too
came up in a thread on a far off topic but it bears weight here, too. I mean… really.
Caucasoid, please!
7. drachefly says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:41 AM
Chang, I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
8. Narkor says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:44 AM
One thing I’ve been trying to come to terms with in this debate is how it works in the
other direction. I’ve always kinda thought it was my problem that I was uncomfortable
around women and men that were overly touchy and dressed in a way that seemed
innapropriately provocative for a given situation. Seeing your chest at the beach is fine if
your are a guy or a girl – not so much in certain social situations.
My take on my reactions is that I’m sort of in the clear on feeling uncomfortable about
the guy (though I need to keep in mind that I might be reacting in a way that may seem
homophobic) but that I’m not in the clear about my reaction to the girl (as I’d be being
judgemental about her choices of self expression).
I’m not a tall guy and that seems to give an implicit permission to some types of people
to be a lot more “friendly” with me than they would be with someone taller standing next
to me. I do find it kinda creepy – but I’ve always assumed that it’s something that I need
to get over.
9. ben says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:47 AM
I think part of the misunderstanding here is that people are conflating being “Perceived as
a Creeper” with being “Guilty of Sexual Harassment”. So the instinct is to say “Hey, how
can you call me that, even if I’m playing by the rules?”
10. roystgnr says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 9:53 AM
What I don’t generally do is demand that the other party see it my way and believe that if
they don’t then there’s something wrong with them.
…
If your takeaway from all the above is to think [X] you’re doing it wrong.
Putting lots of paragraphs in between these points was good camouflage for the irony.
“Putting lots of paragraphs in between these points was good camouflage for the irony.”
There’s no irony; I’m not going to demand they see it my way. They are perfectly free to
disagree with me and act like grasping, self-serving assbags if they wish. I hope they are
happy in their choice.
13. JR says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 10:04 AM
Graciously accepting the other’s feelings gives you a chance to show generosity and
leave people with that as their last impression in the interaction.
Also, I challenge your final statement. In theory, there’s a lid for every pot, and people do
exist who consider assbags to be diamonds in the rough. Women who marry dangerous
life-sentenced murderers, for instance. Also Charlie Sheen gets dates. Such cases are rare
exceptions, however, and CLEARLY no reason to actually adopt the “hey, I’ll be a
constant assbag because I gotta be me” attitude. Constant Assbag will now become the
name of my next band in Rock Band, however.
Seriously, I am stunned at the amount of effort it is taking to explain these rather simple
concepts. I have never been to a comic or an SF con so I have no idea what the
environment is like. I have, however, been to many IT technical cons that are heavily
weighted toward geeks & nerds of the male gender. Many of us are not socialized as well
as we should be (its probably what made us geeks & nerds in the first place). Yet I have
never seen or heard of this sort of thing being a problem. Now, it is possible I was just
blind to it but working on panels and in breakouts with women who complained about
their own under representation and often dismissive attitudes (something I did see
frequently) I never heard them complain about creepers. Is this just something
particularly bad in the comic/SF world or what?
Even if it is how can the idea of how to deal with people be so difficult for so many?
Then I hit the 11th grade and I exploded physically but my mental perception took
YEARS to catch up. The defining moment was during a game session when a young
woman, new to gaming, took something I said in character completely wrong and started
screaming at me, incoherently. I, stunned, packed my stuff and left so that the rest of the
folks could continue their evening.
It wasn’t until sometime later that I learned I that had set off several of her triggers. One
of my friends explained it to me and brought it home for me.
I don’t think of myself as large. In my mind I am the same small 12 year old in love with
gaming, RPGS, Tabletop games, etc. However, I am 6feet tall and weigh in at 325lbs. I
rarely shave so I am very scruffy looking. I AM a large man and I speak emphatically.
That makes some people VERY uncomfortable and some people find me intimidating.
So, as a result, I constantly gauge my behavior and watch those around me. I maintain a
strict no-fly zone around myself. I never approach new people closer than handshake
distance and always move at a mosey. Seeing a 300lb scruffy dude marching towards you
can be scary. I know it makes me nervous.
“Is this just something particularly bad in the comic/SF world or what?”
I don’t think it’s particularly bad in this world; it happens in a lot of other places as well.
We just happen to be talking about it a lot the last couple of months.
In the latter case, you’ll spend a lot of time in comment sections, blockquoting and
howling about the context in which your remarks should have been taken, but you’re not
actually in anyone’s face, demanding that she admit her error and express her admiration
for your vast command of Wikipedia and superior linking skills.
People can’t just make themselves suddenly attractive, witty, whatever in your eyes–why
would you be able to do the same?
One of the most important things to learn in interpersonal relationships is this: some
people just won’t like you, and you just won’t like some people… that That Is OK.
That post read like you were mixing apples and oranges. You start by talking about a guy
doing his leisure suit Larry routine and hitting on a woman and she is clearly not
interested. Agreed. If she isn’t interested, the guy should move on.
Then you move into a completely different category where someone is just talking and
the other person just decides they don’t like them. Some people won’t like you. If I don’t
like someone, I tend to just avoid the person. If you don’t like someone, then it is your
responsibility to go away. If I am at a party and one person doesn’t like me, I am not
going to leave. The flip side being, I am not going to walk up and hang out with the jerk
who just wants to talk about himself either. The bottom line is if you don’t like someone,
then its on you to go away.
I have found that as people get older, they tend to care less what people think about them.
I invite you, Guess, to point to the part where I have said any such thing.
While you’re at it, Guess, I invite you to examine why you seem to be thinking that any
such thing has been said when it has not.
I don’t disagree with your post; however, I think it leaves out one significant component:
Most of these judgments are superficial in nature.
I am, btw, speaking within the context of a someone (usually a man) approaching a
member of the opposite sex with the obvious intent of starting some sort of a (hopefully)
personal relationship.
If you have a “look” that a particular man/woman likes, then *almost anything* you
say/do (within reasonable limits, of course) will be perceived as witty, charming,
appealing. On the other hand, if he/she does not like your “look,” then no amount of
conversational skills are likely to convince the other person to talk to you beyond the
minimum required for civility.
If you don’t immediately take the hint, then every second you linger will increase the
odds that you are labeled “a creeper.”
I’d like to address the Nice Guy issue, e.g. the guy who complains that being a Nice Guy
hasn’t gotten him laid and women are all liars and bitches because they ignore the Nice
Guy. I can’t recall where this came up recently (probably a podcast, maybe not) but there
is a real semantic difference to ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ which I’d never really considered which
is that nice has a subtle implication of artifice to it whereas kind carries a connotation of
sincerity. This seems consistent to me with Nice Guys who aren’t actually nice but act in
what they consider to be nice ways because they think that women will then owe them
sex.
I’ve always considered myself to be a nice guy (note lowercase). I’ve had plenty of
trouble connecting with women over the years and in fact been told by some that I’m “too
nice” What I take from this consistent issue is:
1 – I’m attracted to women who aren’t into guys like me
b – This is my problem, not theirs
I can continue to pursue women who have no interest in me, but it would be absurd for
me to then complain about them not being interested in me. One’s reach should exceed
one’s grasp etc etc.
I’m dealing with a creeper issue right now (not creeping on me, but on several female
friends of mine). The attitude of creepers tends to be more that they wont’ accept being
rejected at all, because that implies agency on the part of their target. They don’t view
their targets as actual people.
I will clarify that I refer here to serial creepers rather than just the casually socially
awkward who can sometimes be creepy without realizing it.
It’s also made me think seriously about the mixed messages I’ve probably unintentionally
modeled. I’m an introvert and, to put it mildly, not a touchy-feelly person. However, I
know that I’m not exactly normal in that regard, esp. in terms of what is considered
normal for women. So I endure, as graciously as I can, unwanted hugs and little touches
from acquaintances who consider those things to be normal, friendly behavior. (I’m
already enough of an anti-social weirdo among the set of other mothers associated with
my kids’ school. No need to make that worse). So I’ve found that I really need to explain
threatening vs. non-threatening, creepy vs. too-extroverted-to-get-how-introverts-feel,
etc. All of these are things are not easy to think though or explain, so I am very grateful
for someone as articulate as you (and many of the commenters here) to help me formulate
those explanations.
I think you need to re-read that article a little bit – for someone with all of your “degrees”
I wonder at your reading comprehension.
Let’s holster the “reading comprehension” cracks, please. In most cases it crosses the line
from civil to something else (says the guy who uses it himself from time to time, but
whose site it is and therefore has slightly more leeway on these things).
39. The Pint says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 10:48 AM
Something that we all need to learn even though it’s hard and can hurt: Not everyone will
like you. No matter how good your intentions or how hard you try. And that’s ok. But
when you keep pushing because you feel slighted that they “haven’t give you a chance
and they’d just change their minds if-” NO. That’s where you stop right there, because no
one is obligated to do anything of the sort. And the thing is, that works both ways –
you’re not obligated to “like” someone or give a person more allowances than you’re
comfortable with, either.
With the risk of getting off-topic, If anyone is interested in a bit of reading on what Nina
appears to consider to be typical interactions with women – read her link.
It is still headdeskingly frustrating that the rule – you don’t get to dictate other people’s
opinions of you – seems to be hard to get.
“Seriously , Mr. Scalzi, anyone who does not take communicating with another person in
a matter of fact and normal manner, but instead spends her time analyzing your down to
earth and ordinary witticisms as “What did he mean by that?” “Is he flirting with me?”
“I am so not ready for this” and then “man this guy is creeping me out, is there any
underlying motive behind what he said just now?” has serious psychological issues. You
are not responsible for her cerebral meanderings.”
I have to take issue with this. The reason pieces like this, Scalzi’s original post, and the
multiple posts covering these topics on Dr. Nerdlove, Pervocracy and Captain Awkward
exist are because there are LOTS of people out there for whom communicating in a
“matter of fact and normal manner” is difficult and confusing. Human beings do not
spring into being automatically understanding social norms or behaviors – we have to
LEARN them and not everyone learns the same way (some people are not neurotypical
and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT) or even has the opportunity to learn how
to navigate the complexities of social interaction.
Your implication that women who analyze context of people’s (often male) words and
behavior only due so because of “psychological issues” demonstrates a disturbing amount
of ignorance about the space women occupy in our patriarchal culture, in which women,
when victims of harassment/assault/rape, are often subjected to “Didn’t you think
something was wrong because of X?” “Why didn’t you notice A,B and C?” “What were
you thinking?!?” Whether that’s willful or naivete, I don’t know, but given the “Bitchez
be crazy” tone of your posts and the piece you linked to, I’d have to lean toward the
former.
No, a person is not responsible for the “cerebral meanderings” of another person, but it’s
basic common courtesy to be CONSIDERATE of how your actions are being received by
another person and respecting the boundaries and comfort level of others. It’s called
empathy.
Which brings up another good point: even outside of the actually-creepy realm, as The
Pint says, nobody is obligated to like anyone else. Nobody is obligated to hang out with
anyone else. In giant common spaces like cons or even in smaller mutual social circles,
I’m going to tolerate Guy With Zero Volume Control or Every Conversation Must Be
About Family Guy Girl, but I’m going to look for polite excuses to avoid them, and I’m
generally not going to invite them to my own parties.
I think that’s fine. Everyone has the right to select their own company; they can moderate
their habits, or find people who don’t mind Loud Howard or really really like Family Guy
too. I wish them well. At least, I wish them well until they start getting all guilt-trippy
and resentful, or using words/phrases like “superficial” or “friend zone”*, at which point
I hope they get eaten by bears.
*Seriously, that phrase, if you use it non-ironically, pretty much marks you as someone I
have no interest in talking to, ever.
Also, I love the Butthole Surfers quote for the title of this post.
I’m still baffled as to why Nina thinks that John only ever talks to women…
Sometimes it’s easier to see the outlines of the interactions if you consider a different
venue, for example a job interview. Normally you would prepare yourself by trying to
find out what the employer is looking for and presenting yourself in a way that would
make them want to hire you. If they don’t hire you, do you think it’s really going to help
for you to keep telling them what a big mistake they’ve made? It’s not a way to win
friends, either.
People are free to choose who they want to interact with and who they don’t, just as they
are free to choose who to hire and what kind of shampoo to buy.
47. martin says:
AUGUST 16, 2012 AT 11:23 AM
Given this is a writer’s blog, I’m surprised that no one has brought up the (to me) obvious
analogy. The issue in question is very similar to the writing principle of “You don’t get to
choose how your readers interpret your prose,” right down to having similar corollaries.
(“But you are still responsible for what you wrote,” “But if you don’t try to say
something worthwhile anyway that is your failure, not your readers,” and “No matter
how hard you try or how skillful you are, there are inevitably going to be people who take
your intention not just wrongly, but outright WRONGOMFGWTFBBQLY.”)
I deal with people every day that have some characteristic I am uncomfortable with for
my own reasons. That does not give me the right to treat anyone with disrespect. I can’t
tell how other people see me, unless they tell me. However, I can make an effort to see
things from their perspective, I can strive for some empathy and compassion and respect.
Well, no. You can choose to treat people with what you believe is mutual respect and
compassion, and I would encourage that. You cannot insist that they interpret what you
offer exactly as you intended to offer it. And if they reject what you offer or interpret
differently than how you intended to offer it, you can’t insist they see it your way.
That above thought includes allowing others NOT to engage with you if they choose to,
even for erroneous (aka – unintentionally to you off-putting) reasons!
I was thinking about the previous thread comparing “Alice thinks Bob is a creeper” to
“Charlie shoulder checks Dave, calls him a prick, and laughs”. It was the “and laughs”
part that stood out as a psychological tell. The perception from Bob’s point of view of
being called a creeper when he misunderstood Alice’s signals, is that it’s an attack on his
honor.
And for the folks already winding up their spleens to vent at me about how it doesn’t
matter that it’s honor, yes. you’re right. When trying to deal at a systemic level with
creepers and harrassment, it doesn’t matter what the motivations are. Jeebus. I get it.
But at the same time, when trying to address creepers and harrassment at a systemic
level, there is nothing to be gained by attacking people for being driven by fairness and
are heavily motivated by honor. Because by themselves, fairness and honor do not make
someone a creeper.
This is one of those situations where I think Gulliver’s tweak to the definition of
“creeper” makes a huge difference. If you define creeper as someone who makes
someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe, then folks who get wound up because someone
“laughed at them” are going to get wound up about the definition of creeper. Because the
definition says they’re a creeper if any other person in the world thinks they are. If
someone is motivated by honor, then this definition is about the worst possible thing in
the world.
And what happened on the other thread was someone compared the unfairness of the
definition of creeper with the unfairness of someone walking down the street, calling you
a prick, shoulder checking you, and laughing.
If you tweak the definiton to say someone is a creeper if they make someone feel
uncomfortable and they don’t do anything to make the person feel comfortable again
(apologize and leave, usually), then who is and is not a creeper is not entirely in someone
else’s hands, it’s not entirely defined by any individual anywhere in the world. The
person accused of being a creeper by someone can prove they’re not by apologizing and
leaving them alone.
If they’re a creeper only based on what the other person thinks, then they’re motivated to
try and change the other person’s mind, to hang around, to persist, to try and convince
them otherwise. If the person is motivated by honor, what what other people think of him,
then this feeds into it and makes everything worse.
If they can avoid being a creeper by leaving the person alone, then their isn’t the
motivation to try and change the other person’s mind. They just leave the other person
alone, and they’re not a creeper. If the person is motivated by honor, then they can keep
their honor by simply walking away, proving they’re not a creeper.
If you want to respect and feel nice things towards everyone, that’s your choice.
Sometimes people’s actions make me angry, or uncomfortable, or otherwise not
respectful or compassionate. I’m not a defective person because I feel that way, and my
actions are not defective if I choose to confront that person in order to remove the source
of my discomfort, and am not particularly interested in seeing things from their
perspective.
Just to let you know, the use of the word ‘hono(u)r’ in any conversation about the way in
which men and women interact sexually is a trigger for a lot of women, me included.
So called ‘honour killings’ in which women are murdered because they seem not to
comply with religious doctrines are depressingly familiar and it really does not help when
someone tries to introduce that concept into an area which has hitherto been free of it…
I believe that you and I have vastly different interpretations of the same article we just
read.
Here is what I didn’t read: I didn’t just read a piece wherein an author bemoaned having
to care about what other people think of him.
I did just read a piece that seemed to merely explain that we (with the author using
himself as an example), as mere humans, cannot choose how other people see us,
regardless of our intentions. And, as a part of being a human, he accepts that some people
won’t want to hang around him. Even if that’s not his fault (read: not his intention to give
someone the creeps or the ughs), that’s still OK if they don’t want to be near him.
Yeah, it does kinda suck when someone doesn’t get you as a person. That doesn’t mean
they have to give you the time of day or to be “fair” and let you explain until they get
you. *
I found your initial reply to be harshly dismissive. This article was not centered upon
someone’s “cerebral meanderings”. That phrase alone is dismissive in that context. And
coupled with the rest of your reply seems to imply that the only time a woman finds a
man’s company unpleasant is when she’s reading too much into the situation. (Oh, gee,
those women thinking too much…)
Also! That a woman has to be held to a standard where she can fully see the intentions of
another person approaching her (the whole “but he was only being friendly” to someone
who doesn’t attack her, but if someone does attack her then the comments become “but
why didn’t you get a creepy vibe and then leave?”), and those other people who are doing
the approaching aren’t made to examine their own behaviors let alone appreciate the fact
that their intentions don’t matter if someone doesn’t want to be around them for any
reason.
This article, and the other ones it’s connected to, stem from cases (and a general vibe in
the community, if you will) of women’s boundaries not being respected, and heck in
some cases not even being acknowledged as a thing that exists. Specifically this happens
to be about what’s going on in the fan convention world, but also less specifically
everywhere that women are, which is… everywhere.
To which my response is: you have got to be kidding me. Outside of the realm of
possible potential creepiness, you don’t get to choose how other people respond
to you, either. In any context. Indeed, regardless of your efforts to present
yourself in a certain way, it is almost certain you will come across to some other
people as not that way at all, and possibly the opposite of that way entirely.
Let me, as I so often do for matters such as this, use myself as a good anecdotal
example. You know, generally I try to be amusing; some people don’t find me
amusing in the least. I try to write engaging books; there are people who can’t
stand my writing. I often speak up on issues that are of concern to me; there are
people who wish I would shut up about them, including some folks who are
nominally on my side of an issue. I try to be pleasant with people; to some people
I come across as insufferable, glib or insincere. I try to be open and upfront about
most of my opinions; some people see that as me being an arrogant asshole.
And so on.
I’m not gonna lie, here: I don’t really see myself as a glib, unamusing asshole
who writes awful books and doesn’t know when to shut up. But despite my best
efforts not to be any of those things, there will be people who think at least one
(and possibly all) of those things about me. Because in their heads, that’s how
they see me. It doesn’t mean they’re having a psychotic break with reality.
There’s enough room for variation in basic human interaction for this sort of thing,
even before you add in everyone’s own personal life experience to the mix —
their own personal reasons for thinking a person acting like I do might be glib
rather than pleasant, as an example.
What can I do when I try to be [x], and I come off as not[x] to some other person?
In the very short run, not much of anything. People are going to respond to me
the way they’re going to respond to me, for all the reasons they have that
response. I’m not going to know all those reasons unless I try to engage them in
a Quest for Context, which may not be convenient or appropriate at the time. I’m
best off accepting that to them, that’s how I’ve come across.
The next thing I can do is ask myself, well, do they have a point? Am I being
glib/unamusing/an asshole? Because sometimes they’re right and I am wrong. In
which case, fair enough. I’ve learned something and will work to fix my behavior.
Note that this requires a certain amount of personal honesty and willingness for
critical self-examination that everyone says they have but lots of people actually
don’t. On the other hand, If I decide they don’t have a point, then I generally chalk
it up to people having differences of opinion and let it go.
What I don’t generally do is demand that the other party see it my way and
believe that if they don’t then there’s something wrong with them. One, who has
the time, and two, I’m not sure it’s really important that everyone respond to me
in precisely the same way.
(If one does have time and the other party has an interest, one could talk to them
about the variance and see where the disconnect is. But sometimes one party or
the other doesn’t have that interest or time; that’s fine too. If one does that,
however, one probably shouldn’t do it with the underlying thesis of “let’s discover
why you’re so very wrong in your opinion about me and how we can fix that.”
Most other people won’t sign up for that.)
Bottom line here: Your self-image is not the same as the image of you others
receive. People will often see you entirely differently than you want them to. No
one’s required to see you the way you see yourself, and you probably can’t make
them do that even (or often especially) if you try. If you try to insist that they must,
the likelihood of you coming across as petulant and unpleasant rises significantly.
So, no, in this respect, some people (often women) seeing other people (often
men) as creepers when those other people are trying to be interesting and
engaging and fun is not actually an unusual reaction dynamic at all.
What is different about the creeper scenario is that there is very often a physical
and psychological dynamic that has threatening possibilities to it. Which to my
mind makes it more important for people to realize in that situation that they don’t
have the ability to dictate how others respond to them, and to accept that as part
of the ground rules going in.
One final point: If your takeaway from all the above is to think “If I can’t control
how other people respond to me, then I’m relieved of my duty to be concerned
about how I come across,” then you’re doing it wrong. People may respond to
you differently than you intend; you should still make an effort not to be a
grasping, self-centered assbag. In my experience, being a grasping, self-
centered assbag is one of the very few times where how you present yourself is
exactly how other people see you, every time, without exception.