Completely wrong on every level. The article argues that "I have a boyfriend" means: When in fact, "I have a boyfriend" means "I have committed to another." Respecting that does not mean regarding women as property, it means respecting a woman's choice in relationships. Turning that into an instrument of male oppression is, frankly, insane. Further, "I have a boyfriend" is what we call a white lie. Telling someone you're not interested in that you have a boyfriend when you don't allows that person to save face. Allowing that person to save face skips this conversation: Here's the subtext of that conversation: "Hello, I find you attractive and/or interesting." "I find you unattractive and uninteresting." "Wait...what?" "Yep." "Are you seriously going to stand there and insult me? There's no way you could pad this a little bit?" "None whatsoever. I refuse to support the male paradigm." "This isn't about the male paradigm, it's about hurting feelings - " "How male of you. Allow me to lecture you on how you're not allowed to have feelings because you're male." Flip it. When a girl comes up to me at a bar and I don't say "I have a girlfriend" is it better for me to say "I'm not interested?" Because from a male perspective, the initial dance is almost entirely "are you hot or not?" So "I'm not interested" is effectively "you're too ugly." Who is that empowering?The idea that a woman should only be left alone if she is “taken” or “spoken for” (terms that make my brain twitch) completely removes the level of respect that should be expected toward that woman. It completely removes the agency of the woman, her ability to speak for herself and make her own decisions regarding when and where the conversation begins or ends. It is basically a real-life example of feminist theory at work–women (along with women’s choices, desires, etc.) being considered supplemental to or secondary to men, be it the man with whom she is interacting or the man to whom she “belongs” (see the theory of Simone de Beauvoir, the story of Adam and Eve, etc.).
“I’m not interested.” Don’t apologize and don’t excuse yourself. If they question your response (which is likely), persist — ”No, I said I’m not interested.”
“Oh, so you have a boyfriend?”
“I said, I’m not interested.”
“So you’re a lesbian, then?”
“Actually, I’m not interested.”
“You seem crazy.”
“Nope, just not interested.”
Et cetera. You could even, if you were feeling particularly outspoken, engage in a bit of debate with the man in question.
You make a point, but the problem is that the only reason a lot of men will accept is "I have a boyfriend." Women will get harassed non-stop unless they use that. "Sorry, I'm not looking for anyone right now." seems like a challenge to men. Being polite and trying to move to someone else or end the conversation doesn't work. Only the boyfriend excuse, and sometimes not even then. It's a strange paradigm that a woman can give any number of reasons and they won't stop, but saying you have somebody else does work. I don't know if it's out of fear or out of respect for another man more than a woman's choice or the respect for the sanctity of another relationship, but it would certainly be frustrating as a woman if the only way you can get out of a situation of being hit on is by bringing up another man. I don't know that saying "sorry, I'm not interested" is necessarily an affront to the man giving attention, either by way of their looks or personality. Sure, it could be given tone or body language, but it can be done politely as well. I actually have used the "sorry, I'm not interested" to women in bars before. Of course, it's phrased a little differently, but I don't mind using "I have a girlfriend" either, because, unlike what women face, the entire world I live in isn't controlled and dominated by the opposite sex. I get to have autonomy in that situation, and they don't. Additionally, any reason I give to women will usually work, while men are persistent little fuckers more often than not.
Stop right there. The entire problem with this discussion is it's an attempt to inject gender politics into gender relationships. Your sentence is reversible: "the only reason a lot of women will accept is "I have a girlfriend." Men will get harassed non-stop unless they use that." The issue is clouded by the simple fact that even in Our Enlightened Era, men remain the pursuers and women the pursued. That's the paradigm we're all used to. The context of this discussion is "women who wish to go to locations that exist largely for hooking up without having to hook up." That's pretty fucking empowered right there, but somehow men are oppressing women if they don't encourage women to be bitchy in their response. Again - put the shoe on the other foot. "hey, handsome, can I buy you a drink?" "No." "Uhh, okay. Was it something I said?" "I'm not interested." How do you think Jezebel would respond to that? So take it out of the dating milieu. You're walking down the street and a dude asks "Hey buddy, spare any change?" Two possible choices are "Sorry, man, no cash" and "get a job." If you say "sorry man, no cash" then you can end the conversation with no hurt feelings. If you say "get a job" you can end the conversation by asserting your belief in a merit-based economy. Also by being a douche. Or: You're hanging out at the club and someone asks "Hey, man - spare a cigarette?" Two possible choices are "Sorry man, don't smoke" and "buy your own." If you say "sorry man, don't smoke" you can end the conversation without hurting any feelings. If you say "buy your own" you've just engaged someone to fixate on your evening sucking for as long as you're in sight. You know what's keenly anti-feminist? Ascribing chauvinist motives to strangers looking to flirt simply because they're looking to flirt. You know what's also keenly anti-feminist? Arguing that rudeness is an acceptable vehicle for feminine empowerment. But you know what's the worst? Arguing that feminists aren't being feminists if they're polite, while arguing that women who are polite aren't feminists. Because it leads to bizarro-world statements like: In two sentences you said you've done the same thing, only different, and then argued that women get to be rude because the "entire world" they live in is "controlled and dominated by the opposite sex." Look. The glass ceiling still exists. Women do not have total equality. But this is some straight up Lysistrata shit here. And it's fucking stupid.You make a point, but the problem is that the only reason a lot of men will accept is "I have a boyfriend." Women will get harassed non-stop unless they use that.
I actually have used the "sorry, I'm not interested" to women in bars before. Of course, it's phrased a little differently, but I don't mind using "I have a girlfriend" either, because, unlike what women face, the entire world I live in isn't controlled and dominated by the opposite sex.
How are gender relationships not saturated with gender politics by their nature? I'd go so far as to say that since gender is entirely social, gender relationships are in fact the only place gender politics exist. Sure, you could reverse it, but now it's no longer true and actually pretty absurd. That's the point. Jezebel is the first place I've seen this placed ONLY in the context of a bar/club and I'm pretty disappointed in them. IIRC the original context of the tumblr reblog this article is based on was street harassment, but in that context your point is obviously bullshit so let's give you the benefit of the doubt and set that aside. Perhaps you see bars and clubs as "places that exist largely for hooking up" but that's not what they are to a lot of people, and it's silly to insist it's true to everyone or to insist that everyone accept the asinine behavior of those who think it is true. There's a deficit of safe spaces for women to publicly drink, dance, socialize, etc without being harassed or targeted, and it's directly because of that attitude. In my area at least there's even a phenomenon of straight women attending gay bars to escape the situation, which causes its own problems, but that's for another time. The issue is not that women must be "encouraged" to be "bitchy in their response", it's that harassers are so persistent that they literally won't take no for an answer unless you justify yourself in a way they approve, and there is no place where this type of interaction can be avoided. That's what's oppressive. "hey, handsome, can I buy you a drink?" "No." "Uhh, okay. Was it something I said?" "I'm not interested." How do you think Jezebel would respond to that? This happens daily around the nation, and nobody has a problem with it. Also by being a douche. Or: You're hanging out at the club and someone asks "Hey, man - spare a cigarette?" Two possible choices are "Sorry man, don't smoke" and "buy your own." If you say "sorry man, don't smoke" you can end the conversation without hurting any feelings. If you say "buy your own" you've just engaged someone to fixate on your evening sucking for as long as you're in sight. It's not the same. Spangers will take a simple "no" for an answer. They won't ask you to explain. They usually don't dog you until the corner, or all the way home, or mug you, and the ones that do receive a worse reaction than TFA. In our society there's shame in spanging, which affects their attitude and persistence, but there's no shame and even some bravado in harassing women, which accordingly has an inverse effect. What's anti-feminist is tone policing people who literally just want to not be harassed, and what's chauvinist is apologism for harassment. It's not rude to simply say, "I'm not interested". Women shouldn't have to justify their lack of interest, or spend more than a second establishing it. Your perception of rudeness is influenced by your privilege. Oppressed people are always seen as rude when they begin to resist oppressive norms. Nobody is saying this. All that's happening here is: 1) Some women discussed the possibility that one particular method of avoiding harassment is disempowering because it effectively depends on the male privilege of someone else. It was suggested that this particular method be avoided. 2) Now you are demanding feminists conform to your expectations of what's "polite", expectations that just so happen to maintain that disempowerment, and support environments that enable men to harass women while still demanding respect from them. [snip] In two sentences you said you've done the same thing, only different, and then argued that women get to be rude because the "entire world" they live in is "controlled and dominated by the opposite sex." Yes, it is different. Yes, it is necessary for women to be "rude" in order to resist and subvert patriarchy. Lysistrata was rad as fuck and I love her, but this ain't comparable.Stop right there. The entire problem with this discussion is it's an attempt to inject gender politics into gender relationships.
Your sentence is reversible: "the only reason a lot of women will accept is "I have a girlfriend." Men will get harassed non-stop unless they use that."
The issue is clouded by the simple fact that even in Our Enlightened Era, men remain the pursuers and women the pursued. That's the paradigm we're all used to. The context of this discussion is "women who wish to go to locations that exist largely for hooking up without having to hook up." That's pretty fucking empowered right there, but somehow men are oppressing women if they don't encourage women to be bitchy in their response.
Again - put the shoe on the other foot.
So take it out of the dating milieu. You're walking down the street and a dude asks "Hey buddy, spare any change?" Two possible choices are "Sorry, man, no cash" and "get a job." If you say "sorry man, no cash" then you can end the conversation with no hurt feelings. If you say "get a job" you can end the conversation by asserting your belief in a merit-based economy.
You know what's keenly anti-feminist? Ascribing chauvinist motives to strangers looking to flirt simply because they're looking to flirt. You know what's also keenly anti-feminist? Arguing that rudeness is an acceptable vehicle for feminine empowerment.
But you know what's the worst? Arguing that feminists aren't being feminists if they're polite, while arguing that women who are polite aren't feminists.
Because it leads to bizarro-world statements like:
Look. The glass ceiling still exists. Women do not have total equality. But this is some straight up Lysistrata shit here. And it's fucking stupid.
Men aren't allowed to have feelings? Well looks like I should stop feeling sad about the death of someone close to me. The context of this isn't related to what KB is saying, I'm just pointing out that statement is utter bullshit. It's a favorite statement used by SJWs, at least where I've seen it on the internet, most common example being the SJW depths of Tumblr. "How male of you. Allow me to lecture you on how you're not allowed to have feelings because you're male."
The fact that you put the subtext of not interested into "I find you unattractive and uninteresting." is very telling. Just because a girl is not looking for someone at that point in time, does not mean it is an upfront to your character. She doesn't know you, and is not interested in that at that point in time. She is not insulting you, and shouldn't have to validate you just because she had a brief conversation with you.