Intersectional Chicken

[Trausti]

What to do?

How to play Patriarchy Chicken: why I refuse to move out of the way for men

If you don’t move out of the way for men, your commute changes. For one thing – I’m not going to lie about this – you do collide with a lot of men.

I am an able-bodied 5’ 6” white woman. I move through this world with a lot of privilege.

So if you are a woman, and you’re walking around today, try a game of Patriarchy Chicken. Lean in, sisters. Sharpen those elbows. Collide with some men.

Was That Racist?

There are many times in a day when a person is walking toward me and in my path. In these situations, we both generally make minor adjustments upon our approach. Sometimes, and especially with pedestrians who are black, as I am, there’s eye contact or even a nod. Almost always, we shift our bodyweight or otherwise detour to make the pass easier for the other. Walking courteously doesn’t take much, just soupçons of spatial awareness, foresight and empathy. In seven years of living and walking here, I’ve found that most people walk courteously — but that white women, at least when I’m in their path, do not.

What does the catechism for the new religion say on who should yield? The Woke need to know.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Is this really a thing? Of is she just out to bump into and elbow some people she doesn't like for racial and gender reasons?

 

[zorq]

What to do?
How to play Patriarchy Chicken: why I refuse to move out of the way for men

So if you are a woman, and you’re walking around today, try a game of Patriarchy Chicken. Lean in, sisters. Sharpen those elbows. Collide with some men.

Was That Racist?

There are many times in a day when a person is walking toward me and in my path. In these situations, we both generally make minor adjustments upon our approach. Sometimes, and especially with pedestrians who are black, as I am, there’s eye contact or even a nod. Almost always, we shift our bodyweight or otherwise detour to make the pass easier for the other. Walking courteously doesn’t take much, just soupçons of spatial awareness, foresight and empathy. In seven years of living and walking here, I’ve found that most people walk courteously — but that white women, at least when I’m in their path, do not.

What does the catechism for the new religion say on who should yield? The Woke need to know.

Everyone should yield to everyone. In my experience this is what happens most of the time. I always try to make room for other people, stepping into the street or pausing behind an obstacle like a lamp post or a kiosk if I have to. But also in my experience, it is mostly distracted people who are the biggest offenders. I haven't noticed a demographic pattern to it.

People staring at their phones are a big problem. Sometimes the people who don't yield look zoned out and barely conscious. But really, to me, the biggest offenders are people walking socially as a group. These people walk shoulder to shoulder in couples, triples, or sometimes 5 people wide chatting with each other and lost in their own social games. They seem oblivious to the obstacle they are creating for other people, or probably just don't care.

Anyway, people are inconsiderate sometimes. I discourage it, but I can live with it. People choosing to be actively inconsiderate like the white woman quoted in the OP are assholes.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Is this supposed to be some kind of issue?

Pro-Tip: You can walk like an asshole, or not. It isn't specific to gender or race any kind of BS other than how an individual walks.

aa

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So long as we are getting racist/sexist in this thread (the OP article goes there, so ok, lets go there).

Every time I travel around southeast Asia, there are 2 groups who are universally reviled for being rude and for other tourists and locals wanting nothing to do with: Americans and Chinese

Americans are famously rude and arrogant. That's nothing new. Canadians have been wearing Canada pins on their backpacks for decades so not to invite ire from locals. Most Americans are aware of this reputation and most I have met travelling have actually been nice people, trying to counter-act the image. But the Chinese suprised me. Everywhere I travel in southeast asia, I see people complaining about the rude Chinese, and one big part of that is people saying the Chinese will elbow their way past anyone and skip ahead in lines. I have seen it personally but perhaps its is confirmation bias. Or perhaps there is something emerging within Chinese culture.

 

[Treedbear]

“Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him in contesting for the right. Even killing the dog would not cure the bite.”
— Abraham Lincoln

Apply as needed.

 

[dismal]

In general when two people are coming at each other the American custom is to move to the right. This becomes almost instinctual. When you're in countries that drive on the left it can be a bit discomforting as your instinct is wrong. I always consider the possibility that someone who does not get the move right convention is from someplace like England or Bangladesh and not just a clueless a-hole who has managed to make it to adulthood oblivious of social customs.

 

[untermensche]

If you are a larger ape you are used to smaller apes getting out of your way.

All this does is make the larger ape a little curious for a second. "What is wrong with that smaller ape?"

 

[thebeave]

Men are expected to risk their lives pulling rando women out of a burning van. Given that, would it kill you ladies to just step aside a bit when we're walking towards you? Sheesh... buncha ingrates.

 

[TSwizzle]

But the Chinese suprised me. Everywhere I travel in southeast asia, I see people complaining about the rude Chinese, and one big part of that is people saying the Chinese will elbow their way past anyone and skip ahead in lines. I have seen it personally but perhaps its is confirmation bias. Or perhaps there is something emerging within Chinese culture.

it was explained to me by a Chinese work colleague that Chinese people tend not have a feeling for other people's personal space because they often live in crowded conditions. They tend to stand too close to you at the checkout line or at the ATM etc, oblivious to the notion of invading someone's personal space.

 

[Gun Nut]

spatial awareness, foresight and empathy

These are attributes most city dwellers have little to none of. It's not that they are overtly rude, per say... just completely clueless to basic considerations of other human beings... this is why the vast geographic majority of the US does not want the itty bitty geographical spec of our nation to have too much of a vote. When we say, "city folk just don;t get it", what we mean is, "city folk are completely clueless as to the world beyond their cell phone pressed up against their noses".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But the Chinese suprised me. Everywhere I travel in southeast asia, I see people complaining about the rude Chinese, and one big part of that is people saying the Chinese will elbow their way past anyone and skip ahead in lines. I have seen it personally but perhaps its is confirmation bias. Or perhaps there is something emerging within Chinese culture.

it was explained to me by a Chinese work colleague that Chinese people tend not have a feeling for other people's personal space because they often live in crowded conditions. They tend to stand too close to you at the checkout line or at the ATM etc, oblivious to the notion of invading someone's personal space.

Maybe, but that doesn't explain cutting in front of people.

 

[starwater]

It's a metaphor for moving through a mans world and making your voice heard.

 

[dismal]

But the Chinese suprised me. Everywhere I travel in southeast asia, I see people complaining about the rude Chinese, and one big part of that is people saying the Chinese will elbow their way past anyone and skip ahead in lines. I have seen it personally but perhaps its is confirmation bias. Or perhaps there is something emerging within Chinese culture.

it was explained to me by a Chinese work colleague that Chinese people tend not have a feeling for other people's personal space because they often live in crowded conditions. They tend to stand too close to you at the checkout line or at the ATM etc, oblivious to the notion of invading someone's personal space.

Maybe, but that doesn't explain cutting in front of people.

Some cultures don't do the queue up and wait your turn thing as well as others.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0j0i22i10i30.hRYOHmdz54A

 

[bilby]

spatial awareness, foresight and empathy

These are attributes most city dwellers have little to none of. It's not that they are overtly rude, per say... just completely clueless to basic considerations of other human beings... this is why the vast geographic majority of the US does not want the itty bitty geographical spec of our nation to have too much of a vote. When we say, "city folk just don;t get it", what we mean is, "city folk are completely clueless as to the world beyond their cell phone pressed up against their noses".

The etymology of the word 'civility' is 'behaviour appropriate for life in a city'. The same is true of the word 'politeness' - the difference being whether you prefer Greek or Latin roots.

You don't need to consider strangers when you and your family and friends are the only people for miles. Only in a city, where you are forced to frequently interact with complete strangers, does it become necessary to even have a code of conduct, much less abide by it.

Country people are not less rude than city folks; They just have far fewer opportunities to choose whether or not to be civilised and polite, and encounter far fewer instances of rude behaviour that might prompt them to be rude in return.

 

[Gun Nut]

spatial awareness, foresight and empathy

These are attributes most city dwellers have little to none of. It's not that they are overtly rude, per say... just completely clueless to basic considerations of other human beings... this is why the vast geographic majority of the US does not want the itty bitty geographical spec of our nation to have too much of a vote. When we say, "city folk just don;t get it", what we mean is, "city folk are completely clueless as to the world beyond their cell phone pressed up against their noses".

The etymology of the word 'civility' is 'behaviour appropriate for life in a city'. The same is true of the word 'politeness' - the difference being whether you prefer Greek or Latin roots.

You don't need to consider strangers when you and your family and friends are the only people for miles. Only in a city, where you are forced to frequently interact with complete strangers, does it become necessary to even have a code of conduct, much less abide by it.

Country people are not less rude than city folks; They just have far fewer opportunities to choose whether or not to be civilised and polite, and encounter far fewer instances of rude behaviour that might prompt them to be rude in return.

You are omitting quite a bit a relevant history. Originally, "civility" meant "relating to citizenship - being a civilian". Later (in the 16th century), the word came to mean "Politeness". But today things have progressed considerably in terms of the extent of population density in our cities. They no longer represent areas where there is a fair chance you may run into someone if you really really try - so put some pants on, to now being areas where you cannot make a move without physically bumping into someone - so keep your head down, don;t make eye contact, and pretend you are the only one in the universe. That is what City Culture is now, as opposed to the days of that use of the word. America's current rural areas that are populated at all are far more populated than, say, New York in 1700 (when it's population was like 25,000). The most rural town in America today is Barrow Alaska. It's population is like 4,500.

 

[zorq]

spatial awareness, foresight and empathy

These are attributes most city dwellers have little to none of. It's not that they are overtly rude, per say... just completely clueless to basic considerations of other human beings... this is why the vast geographic majority of the US does not want the itty bitty geographical spec of our nation to have too much of a vote. When we say, "city folk just don;t get it", what we mean is, "city folk are completely clueless as to the world beyond their cell phone pressed up against their noses".

It's so amusing to hear that an empty corn field deserves more say in our political process than a human being. And apparently it's the CITY FOLKS who just don't get it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Regarding the general area of manners, a recent US-based study (2018) showed results that indicated that if a woman experiences rudeness and incivility at work, it is self-reported as being more likely to be from another woman than from a man.

https://www.workingmother.com/women-say-fellow-women-are-ruder-than-men-at-work

https://www.futurity.org/women-coworkers-incivility-1685312/

Risk factors include the woman experiencing the rudeness being less traditionally feminine, dominant and/or further up the management ladder (eg if they are a leader).

That's the relatively easy, if perhaps counterintuitive to some, part.

The hard part is the explanation.

Explanations include that the women who are being rude or critical to those sorts of other women (and this phenomenon may also surface when it comes to women judging women on other behaviours, such as promiscuity, or for their appearance) have internalised male rules (about how a woman is 'supposed' to behave) and thus enforce them. Which does seem plausible to me. As does saying that criticism, covert wiles and 'bitchiness' are the traditional ways that women have been and to some extent still are (in a man's world) 'allowed' to compete (including with one another).

But I wonder how it could be tested that that (patriarchy, essentially) is the primary explanation and not, for instance just 'something about women', in a similar way that toxic masculinity is, often at least, even if not always or completely, 'something about men', at least in the sense that it is something men are asked to take personal responsibility for. I'm not sure a male displaying 'toxically masculine' attitudes and behaviours would get very far if he gave patriarchy as the explanation, even if, to be consistent, it would be, using a similar (nurture over nature) paradigm.

 

[Gun Nut]

spatial awareness, foresight and empathy

These are attributes most city dwellers have little to none of. It's not that they are overtly rude, per say... just completely clueless to basic considerations of other human beings... this is why the vast geographic majority of the US does not want the itty bitty geographical spec of our nation to have too much of a vote. When we say, "city folk just don;t get it", what we mean is, "city folk are completely clueless as to the world beyond their cell phone pressed up against their noses".

It's so amusing to hear that an empty corn field deserves more say in our political process than a human being. And apparently it's the CITY FOLKS who just don't get it.

Not sure if you misunderstood my position, or something else... to be clear: 1 citizen 1 vote. period... DESPITE city folk "just not getting it". Just because someone is WRONG doesn't mean their voice should be silenced.
I'm stealing the empty cornfield reference... it's a joke to be... something like, "... Just to make sure Trump gets reelected, I planted more corn".. needs work.

 

[J842P]

Regarding the general area of manners, a recent US-based study (2018) showed results that indicated that if a woman experiences rudeness and incivility at work, it is self-reported as being more likely to be from another woman than from a man.

https://www.workingmother.com/women-say-fellow-women-are-ruder-than-men-at-work

https://www.futurity.org/women-coworkers-incivility-1685312/

Risk factors include the woman experiencing the rudeness being less traditionally feminine, dominant and/or further up the management ladder (eg if they are a leader).

That's the relatively easy, if perhaps counterintuitive to some, part.

The hard part is the explanation.

Explanations include that the women who are being rude or critical to those sorts of other women (and this phenomenon may also surface when it comes to women judging women on other behaviours, such as promiscuity, or for their appearance) have internalised male rules (about how a woman is 'supposed' to behave) and thus enforce them. Which does seem plausible to me. As does saying that criticism, covert wiles and 'bitchiness' are the traditional ways that women have been and to some extent still are (in a man's world) 'allowed' to compete (including with one another).

But I wonder how it could be tested that that (patriarchy, essentially) is the primary explanation and not, for instance just 'something about women', in a similar way that toxic masculinity is, often at least, even if not always or completely, 'something about men', at least in the sense that it is something men are asked to take personal responsibility for. I'm not sure a male displaying 'toxically masculine' attitudes and behaviours would get very far if he gave patriarchy as the explanation, even if, to be consistent, it would be, using a similar (nurture over nature) paradigm.

You are making the flawed assumption that any of that stuff is based on scientific inquiry.