I agree.
Stop saying you have a boyfriend. It means, "I'd be interested, except..."
Start standing up for yourself. Say "I'm not interested." It means, "I'm not interested, now or ever."
Save "I have a boyfriend" for those moments when you're a terrible person and you really mean you'd be interested, except you can't. (This last sentence directed at me, especially re: use of phrase "terrible person," so please don't whiplash me over this. I know when I'm a terrible person. (It is possibly frequently.) I'm not calling you terrible. Chill.)
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.
A very important skill to have. We are all terrible (manipulative) people to varying degrees and not admitting to that is just as terrible as being terrible. Get outta here with that holier-than-thou complex, asshole. Sigh. Anyways, this seems less like grrlski (not that the tag isn't relevant, Ref) and more like "hey everyone, common sense is fuckin awesome, amirite?" If we're terrible people and our goal is to try and be less terrible, then that would mean being less manipulative, which means not saying "I have a boyfriend", or for guys, not giving those stupid fucking backhanded compliments meant to undermine confidence. What is it called? Negging? What a load of bullshit. The fear of leading people on, on both sides, stems from miscommunication, on both sides.I know when I'm a terrible person.
I was struggling with appropriate tags for this post, to be honest. Negging, lol. I think we're all terrible people sometimes and I don't know if it would be the best for us to try not to be all the time. Like for instance, if you are breaking up with someone, you're going to hurt them. That's kind of the inevitability of the act. In that way you could be regarded as "terrible" or feel that you are "terrible" because you are causing harm. However, for your own happiness, that harm becomes necessary. Otherwise you stay in a terrible relationship, or at least, one that isn't right for you - and the consequences for all will probably be more painful down the road. I think we have to accept some of the pain we inflict in life as inevitable.
Right, but then there are a couple of ways of breaking up, right? Incoming story that I cringe just thinking about but will get through for the sake of discussion. Had one girlfriend in HS. It was literally just for the sake of having a girlfriend. She was really nice but there was literally nothing we had in common except maybe videogames, which I think she pretended liking more than she did because she liked me (in retrospect I've always been terrible with signals). We "dated" for about a month but I didn't enjoy myself, or know what I was doing, or feel comfortable at all. But I still sorta wanted a girlfriend because that's what you do in highschool, right? You get a girlfriend and regret it immensely for every moment until you break up, the cool kids do it, yeah? So anyways I didn't know what I was doing and I didn't really want to break up with her but I still kinda liked her for the sake of having a gf highschool is confusing. So I decided I wouldn't be the one to break up with her. So I just sorta stopped talking to her. If you think that's as awkward as that sounds, you would be correct! I just cold-shouldered her at school everyday, and it was hella awkward and cemented my belief that dating in highschool is like dating in the workplace. Eventually she just sent me a text saying we weren't going out anymore and I got to feel the sense of relief that comes from holding in a vomit and finally letting it out because god dammit it needed to happen at some point right? (that might have happened to me last night, it might also be why this comment reads like a speed-story.) Anyways, the point I'm trying to get to is that that was much more terrible a way of doing it than just being honest to her and saying that we had nothing in common and that I wasn't even a bit close to being in the right position and mindset to have a girlfriend (still am not). The former is terrible, the latter is inevitable, but the honesty makes it genuine, not terrible. I'm gonna go buy crackers and sprite now.
LOL. Oh, poor you. I will give that there are ways to minimize the terrible-ness of certain situations. However, I think that some can't be avoided, if they do fall upon your shoulders. Like what if you are a manager and you have to fire someone? Even if they deserve to get fired - late on projects, dicking around at work, and so on...I still think that would make me feel like a terrible person. I fired someone! I said "You have the right to make money to support yourself, sure...BUT NOT HERE." I think there are jobs where being "terrible" comes up more than others. like being a judge for instance. Imagine that every day you had to decide, "she's in the right, she's in the wrong" and base it NOT on your opinion of moral justice but on the letter of the law. I think that you would have to deal with feeling terrible there a lot more than you would if you were a kindergarten teacher. Or like, I don't know, a landscaper.
No, it wouldn't be. I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this without sounding like an asshole, but sometimes being a terrible person is what needs to be done. 8bit hit the nail on the head with what he wrote above. I say things and put on an air when I know damn well what I'm getting at, and based on how the other person responds I know if it's working or not. And out of those times sometimes whatever angle I'm playing works, and I win. It's a good feeling sometimes, other times it's a terrible feeling depending on the situation. But it's a good way of getting information.I think we're all terrible people sometimes and I don't know if it would be the best for us to try not to be all the time.
I agree, I you're not interested you should be able to say so and have that respected.
I have a sister. I have a teacher. I have a son. I have a mechanic.
Got baggage with those usages of possession too? Or is it only when a romantic relationship is in play?
I think this is a valid point. Clearly, language changes over time as people come to view things differently, but this thread is about possession and I think it's hard to express certain relationships without expressing possession to one degree or another. To me, this all suggests that people are expressing discomfort with an idea of interpersonal relationships that does not reflect their own ideas. I'm ok with that, but some language to go along with it might be nice. For example, I like saying "my dog" instead of "the dog that I'm taking care of". It's so impersonal and vague.
WELCOME TO MY LAST BREAKUP! In which not only did my ex argue with me about me not liking the nickname "m'Emily" (which meant "my Emily"), but then tried to use "my girlfriend" as an example of why "my Emily" would be an okay nickname that I should just rearrange my entire feelings about in order to be okay with it. I asked him if he was really going to use that as an example, and then stated that at least "my girlfriend", similar to "my brother" denotes one specific aspect of a relationship that you have with a given person, whereas "my (insert name here)" implies complete and total ownership of the person as a whole. "my girlfriend/boyfriend" is contextual and implies that person's relationship to you. After all you would say "my mother" right? Because it means out of all the mothers in the world, this specific one has a relationship with you. I don't find myself referring to the people I date as "my boyfriend" or what-have-you - I much prefer to refer to them and introduce them as their first name, and let the fuckers figure it out - but I can understand where that convention comes from. "my (full name here)" though, that's just fucking ridiculous.
This is touching on the complication of language, truly. "Have" is so myriad in its meanings that to relate it only to its "possessive" or "ownership" role is problematic and kind of a single reading of the language. I mean, for sure, you can read the phrase "I have a significant other" as a possessive relating to "I own this person in some way" or "this person is attached to me and only me without any other defining features", and it is of course very problematic, and has a deep, dark underbelly of ugliness. But if you try and take that and expand it to other relationships the concept breaks down, right? which is what briandmyers is getting at. Like, "I have a Conductor who is frustrating to deal with." I don't possess "my conductor", I possess "my relationship with my conductor", which, in the context of this example, is poor. I think the problem comes from the fact that "I Have a significant other" ends there. there is no context to the relationship like the one I have with my conductor. This leaves it open to the concept of sole possessiveness (which leads to severe problems in relationships). "have" also has a concept of time/space involved. "I have been to Paris, once." "I have to go." Thanks for setting my brain a-working. How do you bring a significant other up in the context of a conversation?
Tough one. I freely admit to having used "I have..." at various points in my life. I don't know what it is about the phrase that rubs me wrong exactly -- yeah there are overtones of possession, though as briandmyers points out, it's mostly coincidental -- but it's hard to avoid using. I like "I'm with someone" or "I'm dating a girl named x" as direct replacements, but it doesn't always sound right, and those aren't perfect substitutes.How do you bring a significant other up in the context of a conversation?