4 ms·

Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer.

Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer. Once I gave a guy a simple-but-polite "no" in college, and he responded with harassing emails/repeated phone calls/stalking/etc for months. Once during an internship, a superior cornered me in my office after-hours, blocking my exit and declaring his love for me. I could've said "no", but I was alone and cornered and in a very vulnerable situation, so I stammered over excuses about being really busy with work right then and thanked God that my internship was ending in a few days. I wish I could just say "no", because most men would be civil and bow out and appreciate the straightforwardness. But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be.

stcredzero 11y ago
Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer. On what basis should men be treated by-default as if they are, "the type that won't take no for an answer?" Wouldn't it be parsimonious to try the "no" and see what happens, in that case? How about we're all treated as emotionally secure, professional, rational beings until we show otherwise? But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be. The thing about growing up where you are literally one of only a dozen asians for a 50 mile radius, is that the sociopath racists sometimes come out of the woodwork -- sometimes even to be your "friend" then really let you have it when the time is right. That doesn't entitle me to automatically assume everyone is going to be one of those jerks. Nor would that be a productive stance to take. How about some "evidence based" life in principle, not just when it suits one's agenda? I should be treated with according to my deeds and evidence of my character. Not according to statistics attached to an attribute I was born with.
- ghostcat 11y ago
  I reiterate: "I wish I could just say "no", because most men would be civil and bow out and appreciate the straightforwardness. But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be." It's erring on the side of caution because I fear for my personal safety. I wish it weren't this way, but surely you can empathize with a desire to protect oneself, particularly given negative experiences in the past?
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    I can empathize, which is why I can also empathize with being "profiled." I know that from both sides. I also know what it's like to be objectified as an emblem or symbol or any number of things less than human. However, the long term and just solution to prejudice can't be more prejudice. Social norms which "profile" me based on an attribute I was born with can't be socially just. I also have no way of knowing in advance which white person is going to attack or denigrate me next. (Of all those incidents in my life, it is that "group" which is most prevalent.) Should I interact in a way which assumes any of them might at any time?
- NoGravitas 11y ago
  > On what basis should men be treated by-default as if they are, "the type that won't take no for an answer?" Wouldn't it be parsimonious to try the "no" and see what happens, in that case? It would be parsimonious, and on average, it would work out. The problem is that the cost of being mistaken is high enough that it's worth working to avoid the worst-case result rather than optimize for average-case results. Does that make sense?
rokhayakebe 11y ago
Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer. While it is not evident a guy will take a no worst than a girl would, I agree that a straight "no" will always lead to an unpleasant outcome.

stcredzero 11y ago

Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer. On what basis should men be treated by-default as if they are, "the type that won't take no for an answer?" Wouldn't it be parsimonious to try the "no" and see what happens, in that case? How about we're all treated as emotionally secure, professional, rational beings until we show otherwise? But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be. The thing about growing up where you are literally one of only a dozen asians for a 50 mile radius, is that the sociopath racists sometimes come out of the woodwork -- sometimes even to be your "friend" then really let you have it when the time is right. That doesn't entitle me to automatically assume everyone is going to be one of those jerks. Nor would that be a productive stance to take. How about some "evidence based" life in principle, not just when it suits one's agenda? I should be treated with according to my deeds and evidence of my character. Not according to statistics attached to an attribute I was born with.

ghostcat 11y ago
I reiterate: "I wish I could just say "no", because most men would be civil and bow out and appreciate the straightforwardness. But I have no way to know in advance which kind of person any given guy is going to be." It's erring on the side of caution because I fear for my personal safety. I wish it weren't this way, but surely you can empathize with a desire to protect oneself, particularly given negative experiences in the past?
- stcredzero 11y ago
  I can empathize, which is why I can also empathize with being "profiled." I know that from both sides. I also know what it's like to be objectified as an emblem or symbol or any number of things less than human. However, the long term and just solution to prejudice can't be more prejudice. Social norms which "profile" me based on an attribute I was born with can't be socially just. I also have no way of knowing in advance which white person is going to attack or denigrate me next. (Of all those incidents in my life, it is that "group" which is most prevalent.) Should I interact in a way which assumes any of them might at any time?
NoGravitas 11y ago
> On what basis should men be treated by-default as if they are, "the type that won't take no for an answer?" Wouldn't it be parsimonious to try the "no" and see what happens, in that case? It would be parsimonious, and on average, it would work out. The problem is that the cost of being mistaken is high enough that it's worth working to avoid the worst-case result rather than optimize for average-case results. Does that make sense?

rokhayakebe 11y ago

Using a straight-up "no" can turn it into an outright confrontation, which can be pretty dangerous if the guy isn't the type that will take "no" for an answer. While it is not evident a guy will take a no worst than a girl would, I agree that a straight "no" will always lead to an unpleasant outcome.