I was just sure that were folk who would think (because it serves their agenda) that the women who do interact are "the good ones" and are "different" from the ones who could understand why a woman wouldn't want to engage/be engaged. in fact, it isn't dichotomous at all.


>even within your response there are again the two parallels
>speaking
>approaching
>
>and neither should leave either party unduly harassed or
>disrespected.
>{sorry, gents. "no" does not = disrespect.}
>
>the ramifications are too dire to take sides on this issue.
>the fact that it is an issue for women should by its virtue
>alone should make it an issue for the menfolk.

*nods* we all suffer under patriarchy; it sets up a lot of dangerous ideals for men to attempt to live up to, which they then fall short of in some way and then (some) take that frustration out on the women who don't allow them to dominate all that they survey in the way they've been told they should, when in fact it's that ideal that's the problem. (an ideal they didn't personally invent, and may not even consciously realize they're aspiring to.) I'd like us all to transcend; I'm not here to demonize or villainize men. somehow, speaking up against that system ends up being taken that way.

(and birds sing sweeter
than books
tell how)