For example, the “put myself in a woman’s shoes” heuristic wouldn’t be enough to make me realize how uncomfortable some women are with being propositioned by an undesirable person in an elevator.
Their epistemology, however, leads them to give insufficient distinction between the elevator issue and the undesirable issue. I followed that discussion when it was big, and I never saw attention being paid to it. And frankly, if it’s more about the “undesirable” part—if it’s okay to proposition women in an elavator as long as she deems you hot—I just can’t sympathize.
“How dare he proposition me in an elavator … without being desirable, I mean!”
I saw it as another case of, “Give the ‘don’t’s but not the ’do’s”—extremely unhelpful and lacking rigor.
And frankly, if it’s more about the “undesirable” part—if it’s okay to proposition women in an elavator as long as she deems you hot—I just can’t sympathize.
“How dare he proposition me in an elavator … without being desirable, I mean!”
Even if feminists said exactly that, it would still be helpful.
Sympathy is not yet relevant at the stage I’m talking about. Such a remark would still be helpful as a correction on a factual error into which the Typical Mind Fallacy would have led me. Setting aside for the moment how anyone ought to feel, the “what would I feel” heuristic would not suffice to tell me that many women are in fact uncomfortable being propositioned by someone undesirable — in an elevator at least. I can’t even get to the stage of judging the appropriateness of that reaction until I know that that reaction is in fact happening. That knowledge is one bit (of a very simple sort) that I have gotten from reading feminism.
I thought I made clear that my evaluations of sympathy would be given at a later stage, similar to when you would do so, and after a (predictable) response is given.
Also, having to turn a man down is always going to be uncomfortable; the relevant question is whether doing so on an elevator is more uncomfortable in any relevant sense, and whether women would apply the rule hot guys..
I thought I made clear that my evaluations of sympathy would be given at a later stage, similar to when you would do so, and after a (predictable) response is given.
Okay, then we are on the same page here.
Also, having to turn a man down is always going to be uncomfortable; the relevant question is whether doing so on an elevator is more uncomfortable in any relevant sense,
I agree that the nature of the discomfort is relevant, such as whether it is affected by being in a confined space. I am persuaded that the confinement of an elevator makes it more uncomfortable. More generally, I am persuaded that the possibility of violence is a more prominent feature of these kinds of interactions for women than it is for men.
and whether women would apply the rule hot guys..
I don’t really see this as so important a question, at least not for my purposes.
It makes perfect sense to me. Presumably the women in question are actually uncomfortable turning someone down in an elevator. If you turn out to be desirable, you dodged a bullet, but it still had the chance of being bad.
Similarly, if I point an unloaded gun at you, I’m breaking basic rules of gun handling, but you could argue that “it’s okay” because you’re not in any danger, in much the same way that “it’s okay” to proposition women who think you’re hot in an elevator.
It makes perfect sense to me. Presumably the women in question are actually uncomfortable turning someone down in an elevator. If you turn out to be desirable, you dodged a bullet, but it still had the chance of being bad.
It always has the chance of being bad. But once you accept that it’s okay for hot men to do it, then you have to allow for the possibility that some men will honestly overestimate their hotness to you.
Similarly, if I point an unloaded gun at you, I’m breaking basic rules of gun handling, but you could argue that “it’s okay” because you’re not in any danger, in much the same way that “it’s okay” to proposition women who think you’re hot in an elevator.
The analogy doesn’t work. It is unconditionally bad to point a gun at someone—“every gun is loaded” as the saying goes—so you still violated protocol even if it’s unloaded. In contrast, propositioning someone in an elevator retroactively becomes okay merely on the basis that you’re not part of the rabble.
A consistent policy would be that elavator propositioning is wrong, regarless of how desireable you are, AND that these places {...} are acceptable for propositioning. As it stands, the complaint reduces to “How dare the rabble think they have a chance with me!” … which, again, I can’t really sympathize with.
I don’t want to get into a drawn-out Elevatorgate discussion, but I would say that the majority of opinion is in agreement with you: NO ONE should proposition people in a “stuck” situation (such as an elevator, parked car, or any other “trapped with no one around and no way to get out” place). “Hotness” does not come into that decision.
NO ONE should proposition people in a “stuck” situation
I agree.
I don’t agree that the event would have made the news if the propositioner had been sufficiently hot.
I don’t agree, based on the previous, that “Hotness does not come into that decision.”
Side note: a lot of what bothers me about conventional advice is that I saw my most romantically successful friends trample right over advice like this.
The analogy doesn’t work. It is unconditionally bad to point a gun at someone—“every gun is loaded” as the saying goes—so you still violated protocol even if it’s unloaded. In contrast, propositioning someone in an elevator retroactively becomes okay merely on the basis that you’re not part of the rabble.
Wait, what? The analogy works exactly; you’re just assuming a priori that the bit you think doesn’t fit actually doesn’t fit. The analogy logically goes that if it’s wrong to point a gun at someone regardless of whether you think it’s loaded because it might be anyway and that would be Very Bad, it’s also wrong to proposition women in elevators regardless of whether you think they’ll accept because the situation where they don’t would be Very Bad.
I don’t know how you missed this; you seem to me to have pointed yourself directly to this conclusion and then walked past it.
Wait, what? The analogy works exactly; you’re just assuming a priori that the bit you think doesn’t fit actually doesn’t fit. The analogy logically goes that if it’s wrong to point a gun at someone regardless of whether you think it’s loaded because it might be anyway and that would be Very Bad, it’s also wrong to proposition women in elevators regardless of whether you think they’ll accept because the situation where they don’t would be Very Bad.
No, the position of skepchic et al is (as best I can tell) that it would be no big deal if the propositioner were hot, at least to the extent that e.g. she wouldn’t be making a blog post about, “hey, this guy I was really into asked me to his room [different terminology because she likes him] when we were on the elevator, and we had a great time, BUT YOU SHOULD NEVER DO THAT and don’t take my acceptance on this occasion as an indication that it’s okay, and I made this clear to him and informed his friends that he did something obviously very dangerous and which they should not repeat.”
Now, you may have a point that there is a similarity between the two (“danger justifies erring on safe side as a rule”). However, there is a more important difference between how they’re handled: specifically, that correct guessers on propositioning in elevators are rewarded, while correct guessers with gun handling are still punished (even if it’s just a verbal rebuke). Yes, I suppose you “should” err on the safe side in both case, but as a practical matter no one is anywhere near giving a damn on correct guesses in one case, while they are very concerned in the other.
And this has fundamentally screwy incentives effects.
Their epistemology, however, leads them to give insufficient distinction between the elevator issue and the undesirable issue. I followed that discussion when it was big, and I never saw attention being paid to it. And frankly, if it’s more about the “undesirable” part—if it’s okay to proposition women in an elavator as long as she deems you hot—I just can’t sympathize.
“How dare he proposition me in an elavator … without being desirable, I mean!”
I saw it as another case of, “Give the ‘don’t’s but not the ’do’s”—extremely unhelpful and lacking rigor.
Even if feminists said exactly that, it would still be helpful.
Sympathy is not yet relevant at the stage I’m talking about. Such a remark would still be helpful as a correction on a factual error into which the Typical Mind Fallacy would have led me. Setting aside for the moment how anyone ought to feel, the “what would I feel” heuristic would not suffice to tell me that many women are in fact uncomfortable being propositioned by someone undesirable — in an elevator at least. I can’t even get to the stage of judging the appropriateness of that reaction until I know that that reaction is in fact happening. That knowledge is one bit (of a very simple sort) that I have gotten from reading feminism.
I thought I made clear that my evaluations of sympathy would be given at a later stage, similar to when you would do so, and after a (predictable) response is given.
Also, having to turn a man down is always going to be uncomfortable; the relevant question is whether doing so on an elevator is more uncomfortable in any relevant sense, and whether women would apply the rule hot guys..
Okay, then we are on the same page here.
I agree that the nature of the discomfort is relevant, such as whether it is affected by being in a confined space. I am persuaded that the confinement of an elevator makes it more uncomfortable. More generally, I am persuaded that the possibility of violence is a more prominent feature of these kinds of interactions for women than it is for men.
I don’t really see this as so important a question, at least not for my purposes.
It makes perfect sense to me. Presumably the women in question are actually uncomfortable turning someone down in an elevator. If you turn out to be desirable, you dodged a bullet, but it still had the chance of being bad.
Similarly, if I point an unloaded gun at you, I’m breaking basic rules of gun handling, but you could argue that “it’s okay” because you’re not in any danger, in much the same way that “it’s okay” to proposition women who think you’re hot in an elevator.
It always has the chance of being bad. But once you accept that it’s okay for hot men to do it, then you have to allow for the possibility that some men will honestly overestimate their hotness to you.
The analogy doesn’t work. It is unconditionally bad to point a gun at someone—“every gun is loaded” as the saying goes—so you still violated protocol even if it’s unloaded. In contrast, propositioning someone in an elevator retroactively becomes okay merely on the basis that you’re not part of the rabble.
A consistent policy would be that elavator propositioning is wrong, regarless of how desireable you are, AND that these places {...} are acceptable for propositioning. As it stands, the complaint reduces to “How dare the rabble think they have a chance with me!” … which, again, I can’t really sympathize with.
I don’t want to get into a drawn-out Elevatorgate discussion, but I would say that the majority of opinion is in agreement with you: NO ONE should proposition people in a “stuck” situation (such as an elevator, parked car, or any other “trapped with no one around and no way to get out” place). “Hotness” does not come into that decision.
I agree.
I don’t agree that the event would have made the news if the propositioner had been sufficiently hot.
I don’t agree, based on the previous, that “Hotness does not come into that decision.”
Side note: a lot of what bothers me about conventional advice is that I saw my most romantically successful friends trample right over advice like this.
Wait, what? The analogy works exactly; you’re just assuming a priori that the bit you think doesn’t fit actually doesn’t fit. The analogy logically goes that if it’s wrong to point a gun at someone regardless of whether you think it’s loaded because it might be anyway and that would be Very Bad, it’s also wrong to proposition women in elevators regardless of whether you think they’ll accept because the situation where they don’t would be Very Bad.
I don’t know how you missed this; you seem to me to have pointed yourself directly to this conclusion and then walked past it.
No, the position of skepchic et al is (as best I can tell) that it would be no big deal if the propositioner were hot, at least to the extent that e.g. she wouldn’t be making a blog post about, “hey, this guy I was really into asked me to his room [different terminology because she likes him] when we were on the elevator, and we had a great time, BUT YOU SHOULD NEVER DO THAT and don’t take my acceptance on this occasion as an indication that it’s okay, and I made this clear to him and informed his friends that he did something obviously very dangerous and which they should not repeat.”
Now, you may have a point that there is a similarity between the two (“danger justifies erring on safe side as a rule”). However, there is a more important difference between how they’re handled: specifically, that correct guessers on propositioning in elevators are rewarded, while correct guessers with gun handling are still punished (even if it’s just a verbal rebuke). Yes, I suppose you “should” err on the safe side in both case, but as a practical matter no one is anywhere near giving a damn on correct guesses in one case, while they are very concerned in the other.
And this has fundamentally screwy incentives effects.