Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: More on crossing streets Message-ID: <611@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Dec-84 12:23:07 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.611 Posted: Sat Dec 22 12:23:07 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 12:42:12 EST Distribution: net Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 49 <> This bantering is getting a little overlong. Might we face some facts? (1) A fair number of women *do* view a strange male as a *potential* threat. There is *nothing* that can be done about it in the short run. Whether it can be construed as paranoia, natural caution, or whatever is totally irrelevant. The fact is that in certain settings, (eg deserted streets) we males DO cause fear in a large number of women by our very appearance. This is fact. (2) There is no way that we can allay this fear with a smile or phrase. Our physical presence is the cause of fear, and in fact, a smile or phrase is likely to *increase* what fear exists. This is fact. (3) The only means of relieving the fear is to remove ourselves from the close physical proximity. This usually entails crossing a street. This (appears to be) fact. (Nobody has come up with an acceptable (to the women) alternative.) Given these facts, the outrage of various males about being viewed as *potential* assailants is pretty pathetic. They ARE viewed a potential assailants and there is nothing that can be done about it (in the short term). They can rant all they like, it's NOT going to change the fact. The other postings about flipping back and forth on streets are silly as well. I think it was very obvious in the original posting that what was meant was deserted streets. Because this wasn't made EXPLICITLY clear is no reason to assume that the author was nuts and expected men to weave through traffic for every female. Going on about scaring women on the other side or being hit by traffic is irrelevant to the discussion and an attempt to push the request into the absurd. Let's assume that the author was rational, shall we? What it comes down to is this. In the face of these facts, we are *requested* to cross the road. NOT demanded. NOT expected. Just requested. We may do so or not do so as we wish. To flame about this request and the reasons behind it is silly. Arguing can't change the existing facts. I too dislike being viewed as a potential assailant, but I am. Therefor I might as well adjust my behaviour to take this fact into account, and, because I *do* try to make other peoples lives easier, I will cross the road on deserted streets. The original posting was well merited. I was unaware of this fear that existed (yes, and dismayed that it exists). I thank the poster for the (albeit unpleasant) insight into one aspect of women's lives. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west