Rant of a Reader

[maddz]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Then please stop insisting that those of us who don't want to be bothered by strangers be tolerant of their overly social behavior, while they shouldn't be tolerant of our not wanting to be bothered by their behavior.

This is what happens when one decides they want to play devils advocate.

The way we feel is NOT wrong, and neither you or anyone else has the right to try and make us feel that we are.

Exactly. What's being effectively said is people must put up with intrusion - even if they have explicitly stated they don't wish to be intruded upon - just because they are in public and hence de facto open to intrusion. Taking this to the logical conclusion, it means that it becomes acceptable to harass people - which to a woman on her own is frankly extremely unpleasant at best and downright dangerous at worst.

This discussion has brought back some rather unwelcome memories for me. When I was 16, I took a Saturday job at a local supermarket. In retrospect, alarm bells should have rung when at my interview I was told they expected female staff to wear skirts - "because we like to see ladies' legs". (Mind you, this was in the antediluvian 1970s.) Later, I was working in the stock room with a male colleague and was rather startled to be grabbed and kissed without any warning and without me signalling that such behaviour would be welcome. Needless to say, that job did not last much longer.

Yes, #MeToo.

[Deskisamess]

How did this thread get from "how to handle chatters" to being sexually harraressed in the 70s?

Some people are chatters. They talk to strangers, while in line, in a waiting room, on a bus, etc. Some people do not like that. In society, we deal with both kinds, and everything in between.

My MIL is a rambler, especially when nervous. She will talk your ear off, and it can be hard to take. She doesn't do much shopping anymore, but there are many folks like her. Heaven help you if you get stuck by her in a waiting room. But it's nerves, and lack education of social graces, not rudeness.

My mother is not a talker. Both women are the same age, and at opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not rudeness, it's her "keep to yourself" personality. But she will smile, nod, hold the door for you. But small talk? No way.

Dealing with people is an everyday need for anyone who leaves their home. All kinds of people. It's part of being a functional adult.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

How did this thread get from "how to handle chatters" to being sexually harraressed in the 70s?

Some people are chatters. They talk to strangers, while in line, in a waiting room, on a bus, etc. Some people do not like that. In society, we deal with both kinds, and everything in between.

My MIL is a rambler, especially when nervous. She will talk your ear off, and it can be hard to take. She doesn't do much shopping anymore, but there are many folks like her. Heaven help you if you get stuck by her in a waiting room. But it's nerves, and lack education of social graces, not rudeness.

My mother is not a talker. Both women are the same age, and at opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not rudeness, it's her "keep to yourself" personality. But she will smile, nod, hold the door for you. But small talk? No way.

Dealing with people is an everyday need for anyone who leaves their home. All kinds of people. It's part of being a functional adult.

I believe that it's not always rudeness. I also believe that it's fairly rude for you to imply that people who have a hard time interacting with others are somehow not functioning adults.

Re-read what you wrote...basically you're saying that if people don't feel comfortable "dealing with people" they should either just suck it up or just stay home. You also said that people who have a hard *not* talking to strangers because of "nerves" are perfectly justified in talking to the ones who are uncomfortable with interactions with strangers.

So...one type of social anxiety is ok to exhibit in public, but another kind isn't, and those who suffer from it should just stay home.

Shari

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by shalym

I believe that it's not always rudeness. I also believe that it's fairly rude for you to imply that people who have a hard time interacting with others are somehow not functioning adults.

Re-read what you wrote...basically you're saying that if people don't feel comfortable "dealing with people" they should either just suck it up or just stay home. You also said that people who have a hard *not* talking to strangers because of "nerves" are perfectly justified in talking to the ones who are uncomfortable with interactions with strangers.

So...one type of social anxiety is ok to exhibit in public, but another kind isn't, and those who suffer from it should just stay home.

Shari

Nothing I can write will stop you from putting words in my mouth, so I'm not going to try.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

For (hopefully) the LAST FREAKING TIME: I've never once intimated that they shouldn't be tolerant of your not wanting to be bothered. But they're not here for me to point that out to, or I would. Pay attention to the words I'm saying and not the ones you seem to want to imagine I'm saying.

1) Privacy in public is not an entitlement
2) Interaction is an unavoidable cost of leaving our privacy at home when we close our doors behind us. Love it or hate it.
3) More tolerance FROM EVERYONE over our respective social differences would be nice.
4) Have a lovely evening. Unless of course you hate lovely evenings. I wouldn't want to oppress anyone by wishing them well against their will.

1) Privacy in public is not an entitlement

Then allow me to say that neither you or anyone else is entitled to decide that those of us wanting exercise our RIGHT to privacy/nonengagement even in public situations do not have the right to decide that for us.

If anyone who interrupts me for more than a quick question and doesn't get the non verbal hints that I don't want to be bothered when I give them, will get a very verbal blunt direct statement of "please leave me ALONE."

Since you want to get picky over the use of the word entitlement, I will choose to use the word "right".

Violating a persons rights can land you in court/jail.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Nothing I can write will stop you from putting words in my mouth, so I'm not going to try.

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Dealing with people is an everyday need for anyone who leaves their home. All kinds of people. It's part of being a functional adult.

This is what you wrote. Please explain to me how that is *not* saying that people who have a hard time dealing with other people are not functioning adults?

Shari

[Alpha o]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

1) Privacy in public is not an entitlement

Then allow me to say that neither you or anyone else is entitled to decide that those of us wanting exercise our RIGHT to privacy/nonengagement even in public situations do not have the right to decide that for us.

If anyone who interrupts me for more than a quick question and doesn't get the non verbal hints that I don't want to be bothered when I give them, will get a very verbal blunt direct statement of "please leave me ALONE."

Since you want to get picky over the use of the word entitlement, I will choose to use the word "right".

Violating a persons rights can land you in court/jail.

If the mouth of a person who wishes to speak has rights - what about the ears of the person who doesn't want to hear the speaker. Equal rights for ears!

I just ignore people if I'm not in the mood.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

If anyone who interrupts me for more than a quick question and doesn't get the non verbal hints that I don't want to be bothered when I give them, will get a very verbal blunt direct statement of "please leave me ALONE."

Great! I think you'll find that bluntness/directness is exactly what I've advocated over hints, clues, grunts, bad juju, extra-firm ESP--what-have-you--several different times in this very thread. Again: read the words people write and stop inserting the ones you need them to be saying in order to make your rant relevant.

Stop arguing with what you WANT me to be saying.

[cfrizz]

Great, next time put that first rather than trying to play devils advocate with a bunch of crap that we who don't want to be bothered with extrovert yappers should be more tolerant. Because it got lost in the rant that you went on about. If you had, this thread would have come to an end several pages back.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Great, next time put that first rather than trying to play devils advocate with a bunch of crap that we who don't want to be bothered with extrovert yappers should be more tolerant. Because it got lost in the rant that you went on about. If you had, this thread would have come to an end several pages back.

I was never trying to play devils advocate. I was playing "better angels of our nature," thank you very much. To the audience I DID have and not the one I didn't. And for your information, I DID put "that" very early in the conversation. It's not my fault you chose to ignore parts of my earlier contributions to the conversation.

And --- again --- my "bunch of crap" was not about convincing those "who don't want to be bothered with extrovert yappers" to be more tolerant. I was suggesting more tolerance all around. But I see you're only interested in getting everyone ELSE in society to behave in the way you deem "correct."

[4691mls]

Perhaps in real life Diap is a large threatening-looking male and just doesn't receive as many unwanted conversational approaches as some if the women in this thread?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Perhaps in real life Diap is a large threatening-looking male and just doesn't receive as many unwanted conversational approaches as some if the women in this thread?

Perhaps that's irrelevant to the conversation I'm having with someone who has clearly indicated they have no compunction about bluntly telling someone to leave them alone (should their non-verbal signals go unnoticed)? It doesn't strike me that cfrizz's desire to not have to deal with "extrovert yappers" has anything to do with fear or intimidation. Please stop trying to make this a sexual harassment issue.

[4691mls]

I was not talking about sexual harassment. Just saying that some people are less likely than others to be spoken to by strangers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I was not talking about sexual harassment. Just saying that some people are less likely than others to be spoken to by strangers.

Sorry. Regardless... people I don't know talk to me everywhere I go. Some wanted, some unwanted.

[arjaybe]

I think the problem is people who won't take the hint to go away. (note: no more than a hint should be required. The onus should not be on the accostee to be impolite, even if it's justified.) Or who say they're going away, and then don't. That adds the pain of hope dashed. I guess sociable people can be forgiven for the initial intrusion, maybe even if it's inane, but then the onus is on them to be observant enough to to see it's unwanted. I repeat, the innocent victim should not have to suffer the stress of being rude.

My strongest contempt is for the few who are observant enough, but persist to indulge their sadistic tendencies.