social justice

The parade of misogynistic twits is live now!

I love waking up to a slew of comments about how repulsive I am. It always means some MRA has linked to me so he and his buddies can pat themselves on the back, and that’s exactly what happened. The author of the post I eviscerated yesterday tweeted this this morning:

The link comes here, which features this profile picture (for the weak of stomach, avert your eyes!).

And boy, I guess I’m just so hideous that I make misogynistic eyes bleed or something:

Because, you know, my life revolves around attracting and pleasing clueless misogynistic fuckwits. Oh wait, it doesn’t.

Some of his supporters have decided to dive into the comments to offer wisdom that just can’t be constrained to 140 characters. Like AnonJon:

You do realize that only Men can determine what is sexy to them?

No matter of projecting from females on to males of what females think men SHOULD find sexy will have any impact.

The biggest problem of feminism has been this very notion.  That females try to decide for men what they should find arousing.

it just doesn’t work that way

You do realize my sole purpose in life isn’t to worry about what men find sexy, and that many men don’t agree with you that educated women are repulsive, right?

Here’s Zorro to the rescue with more stupidity:

Female college professors all stink like yeast and tuna. Everybody knows that!

This dumb broad should learn how to make a sandwich and STFU.

To be fair, S. cerevisiae culturing can smell kind of weird. But I have a feeling that’s not what he’s talking about.

Herdasperser:

Attractive and happy women have no use for feminism.

And because he says so, it’s true. Or something.

Karl:

Your overall level of physical attractiveness (negative 10, if your photo is anything to go by) is enough to keep self-respecting, non-totally-desperate men away from you. Misogynistic or not. Your level of education has nothing to do with it.

I know it’s useless to say it to a feminist, but… get real.

I’m just so hideous, I am a negative 10. Not a zero. I’ve broken the scale. Damn. Do I get a gold medal for that? Is there an Olympic Sport for Repulsing Assholes?

I really don’t get why these people think I care. I would never date anyone who thought women must spend all their time and effort on being “attractive” to men. I put “attractive” in scare quotes because these guys fail to realize that not all men agree with them on what’s sexy, which was kind of the point of my last post. I dress and look how I want to dress and look, and I only date people who are okay with that. But apparently this makes my boyfriend a “latent homosexual” because he doesn’t follow their ideals of what’s sexy.

Now, one more point:

I know when I point out trollish behavior I’m receiving, a lot of people like to run to the rescue and say how attractive they find me. One, if you think what you’re going to say might come off as creepy, then just don’t say it:

I feel immature sharing this information, but given the context I hope you find it amusing rather than creepy.  I developed a mild erection while reading your list of “masculine” traits and thinking about your potential as a girlfriend.  What can I say?  I like nerdy, laid-back, slightly chubby women.  (I am aware you are taken and live far away, but it’s a mostly involuntary response.)

I think this is the definition of TMI.

Two, the point of these posts aren’t for people to swoop in and heal my bruised ego by telling me how hot I am. My ego isn’t bruised – I love laughing at these nitwits. But the point is my attractiveness shouldn’t matter. Even if I was a negative 10, my appearance has nothing to do with the content of my arguments. But notice these guys never actually addressed what I wrote. When you don’t have an argument to make, you have to resort to pot shots about appearance as a desperate attempt to take someone down. Too bad they just make me giggle instead.

Those boner-killing educated women

I’ve never been more glad that I’m getting my PhD. Apparently it’s a great way to keep away misogynistic idiots who think educated women decrease men’s happiness because they aren’t sexy. Because you know, fuck becoming educated and pursuing a career you’re passionate about – you should be acting sexy for some guy! Sorry lesbians and bisexuals, you don’t count. I know it sounds like nonsense, but he has a GRAPH!

Can’t argue with something made in Excel! How did he come up with this highly scientific, objective measurement of femininity and education?

A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.

Sexy Waitress? Unf. Sexy Professor? Get the barf bag. I guess this explains why you never hear about Sexy Librarians or Sexy Nurses, and why nerdy girls universally repulse guys on the internet. …Wait.

Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.

I’m getting nervous at this point. Why, I’m pursuing something beyond a bachelor’s! Though at least I’ve never attended a private, elitist, feminazi university. What terrible masculine traits have I been subjecting my boyfriend to?

1. They’re fat. (This guy probably thinks so)

2. They’re constantly glued to their phone. (Only men are allowed to do this)

5. They think being funny and witty is a quality that men love. (We all know women can’t be funny, right?!)

8. They wear flip-flops even when they’re not at the beach, pool, or in their house. (Comfort be damned, you should constantly be subjected to only the highest of heels!)

9. They have condoms in their drawers because they expect to have random sex with strange men. (I’m such a slut, using condoms)

10. They cannot dance. They also do not know how to sing or play basic musical instruments. (Doing the “shopping cart” counts as a dance move, right?)

12. They acquire pets instead of putting effort into landing a quality man. (I do have more photos of Pixel on my phone than my boyfriend…)

18. Their idea of travel is going to the beach or France. (Paris was awesome!)

24. They make lame excuses for not putting effort into their appearance. (Like “I look fine without makeup and don’t care enough to put forth the time or effort.” LAME!)

25. They obsess about the environment above what is reasonable, even though they pollute more than 90% of people in the world. (#1 pollutant is apparently the rays of masculinity I’m exuding)

33. They insist on eating pizza or otherwise fattening food after a night of binge drinking. (I guess only guys are allowed to fulfill their late night munchies with some nice biscuits and gravy or a Seattle Dog (hot dog with cream cheese and sautéed onions, mmmm))

35. They care more about maintaining their career than a good home. (Pay no attention to the mounds of dirty dishes and laundry)

36. They rarely wear high heels. (Because I don’t own any)

40. They like Ikea furniture. (But it’s like adult Legos! It’s a furniture amusement park! LINGONBERRY SAUCE!)

Pixel enjoying my Ikea furnishings

42. They go on and on about the stupidest shit. (Well, I am a blogger)

That’s only 15 out of 42, which is probably around the Average Masculinity Unit for 3rd year graduate students. By the time I’ve graduated, I’ll probably have picked up a few more terrible traits, like getting acne and watching too much tv.

But this is the money quote for me:

Unless you’re a latent homosexual, you won’t get many benefits from a relationship with a woman on the right side of the chart.

Wow, I never knew my current boyfriend and all of my exes were secretly latent homosexuals! Apparently it’s easy to confuse “latent homosexuality” with “not being an idiotic misogynistic jackass.”

(Via Man Boobz)

MRAs, Christianity, and Ancient Aliens

My three favorite types of nonsense have combined into a Megazord of stupidity:

2,000 years ago Mary Magdalene even if impregnated via test tube in the lab on the alien space ship, gave birth via the cunt, so no tight virginity there.

Ever since then, the holy trinity…

1/ God, an ethreal being that no-one ever saw, except jesus, so if he existed he was an alien ship doctor.. eg he was NOT human.

2/ Jesus, who was NOT human, even the biblical teachings stress this point, he was not a man.

3/ Mary Magdalene, the only human, and therefore the MOST REVERED human in the religion is a wimminz, who fucked an alien to get preggers and got Joe the carpenter to pay for it all and feed and house them.

“Chivalry” in the middle ages was literally based on worship of Mary Magdalen’s cunt, and the chivalric symbology and iconography is replete with cunt symbolism, right down to the order of the garter.

The only remotely male centric tenets of christianity were lifted wholesale from other religions and beliefs and incorporated in an early example of embrace and extend.

Christianity has NEVER been a man’s religion.

Hell even the pristhood, the highest echelons of the meme, were not allowed to fuck.

Is it bad that I’m so used to misogyny, religious nonsense, and ancient alien delirium that my main reaction is “Mary (mom of Jesus) is not the same person Mary Magdalene, dumbass”?

(Via Lousy Canuck)

So you were just called a bigot

I know your feelings are hurt. No one wants to be called a bigot, right? But before you do something silly like scream “FREE SPEECH” or say I’m the bigot, let’s rewind a bit.

Chick-Fil-A has funneled millions of dollars toward certified hate groups in order to fund campaigns that depict gay people as pedophiles, fight against “gay behavior” and the legalization of same-sex marriage, and support dangerous “pray away the gay” programs. They also used their profits to support Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. When I first found out about these atrocious things a couple of years ago, I stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A (despite how much I love their delicious chicken sandwiches). I did not feel right knowing my money could ultimately be used to hurt GLBT people.

I could originally understand why someone wouldn’t boycott an organization that they disagree with politically. I bet there are things I buy that support things I hate, mostly because I don’t know any better, partially because I can’t financially afford to boycott everything. But now that Chick-Fil-A has been in the public eye, you know better. And if you drove to a Chick-Fil-A today to show your solidarity with the organization, you’re not just some random apathetic person who likes a chicken sandwich and doesn’t care about where their $5 goes.

You are a bigot.

You are saying “I agree with Chick-Fil-A’s anti-gay stance!” And your irrational hatred of gay people is bigotry at its finest.

Now, why do I bring this up? I tweeted that “I love seeing the long lines at Chick-Fil-A. It’s not often you get to watch the last desperate gasp of bigotry before it loses.” I then discovered that saying “Chick-Fil-A” on twitter is like some sort of terrible Bat Signal for assholes who are irrationally afraid of Teh Gay. The BigotSignal, even. But instead of a bat, it’s a giant chicken. Or a cross. A chicken on a cross?

I digress.

It seems like people don’t like it when you call them bigots, so the stupidity started rolling in. There were three main classes of responses:

1. Waaaah, you called me a name! I’m not a bigot because I say so!

If I call you a mean name, it does not mean my argument or stance is incorrect. It means I’m kind of being a jerk. But I didn’t call anyone names. When I call you a bigot, it’s not because I disagree with you. I don’t call people who like mint-chocolate ice cream bigots. It’s because you were being bigoted. It’s simple. If you want me to stop calling you a bigot, stop being a bigot.

2. FREE SPEEEEEEECH

Here is a case where I might call someone ignorant (no screen capture of her tweet because she later blocked me). But again, it’s not name-calling because it’s true. The government is not taking away your right to say how much you love fried chicken sandwiches or how much you hate gay people. Thus, no free speech violation. Just as you have the right to spew ignorant hatred on Twitter, I have to right to point and laugh and say you’re wrong. And a bigot.

3. You’re the real bigot!

Ahh, the old “Your intolerance of intolerant people makes you the real bigot!” gambit. It’s amusing on so many levels. For one, it’s like they’re implicitly admitting that yes, they are bigoted toward GLBT people, but it doesn’t matter because you’re bigoted too! Against bigots! GOTCHA!

I call you a bigot because you support those terrible things I listed above: legally denying GLBT individuals equal rights, slandering them publicly, damaging them through terrible psychological programs, and even killing them. You can call me a bigot if I start campaigning that Chick-Fil-A-Holes should not be able to marry, adopt, or serve in the military. You can call me a bigot if I ship my friends off for traumatic psychological boot camps because they dared to eat a chicken sandwich. You can call me a bigot if I compare being Republican to pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia.

If my worst offense is disagreeing with you, trying to convince you that you’re wrong, or calling you a name? That’s not bigotry, despite how much your martyr complex wishes it were so.

This is bigotry:

Consenting adults.

The last gasps indeed.

In which my ladybits further destroy religion

First it was my boobs. Now it’s my ovaries:

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, said that today’s date would live in infamy alongside those two other historic occasions. Wednesday marked the day on which a controversial new requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires health insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for women, goes into effect.

“I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day.  The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack,” Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”

It makes perfect sense. When I save that $350 a year on my Nuvaring and other feminine checkups, that’s $350 extra dollars I can spend on other religion-destroying activities!

  • Flight to Skepticon 5 – $250
  • Eating lunch somewhere other than Chick-Fil-A – $10
  • New child-corrupting video game – $40
  • Buying a new cleavage-showing shirt – $20
  • Cover for my favorite gay bar – $10
  • Satan juice, aka “alcohol” – $20
  • Pissing off the religious right – Priceless

Yeah, I’d say all of that is equivalent to thousands of people dying.

Feminazism runs in my family

This story broke while I was still in Europe, so you may have already heard of it:

Republican state Sen. Marty Golden’s office was planning career-development classes for his “female constitutients,” where participants will “‘refresh’ their knowledge of what’s new in 21st century business etiquette and social protocol.”

“POSTURE, DEPORTMENT, AND THE FEMININE PRESENCE: walking with books on the head are outdated,” part of the course description reads. “Women who walk from their power center. The art of feminine presence. Sit, stand and walk like a model. Walk up and down a stair elegantly……and much more.”

So why am I bringing it up now? Because my big brother is the campaign manager for Golden’s opponent, and I just had to share this wonderful quote from him:

“Tragically, this is Golden’s idea of the 21st Century woman,” Chris McCreight, campaign manager for Golden’s Democratic opponent, Andrew Gounardes, told Politicker. “This just goes to show that Marty Golden just doesn’t get it – either that or he lives in a cave and thinks Leave It to Beaveris a new reality show.”

Zing. Good job, Chris!

Sources claim Purdue’s next President is Mitch Daniels

As a liberal Purdue alumna, this is terrible news:

Purdue University officials plan to vote on a candidate for the school’s next president this week – and WISH-TV has learned Gov. Mitch Daniels is the candidate in question.

The Purdue Board of Trustees will meet at 10 a.m. Thursday in Steward Center’s Loeb Playhouse to vote on a nominee to be the school’s 12th president. Several sources close to the proceedings tells WISH-TV that the nominee is Daniels. After the vote, the president-elect will be introduced, the school said in a news release.

Daniels’ office had no comment Tuesday afternoon. However, sources with connections to both Purdue and the governor said it’s a done deal.

There’s a lot of reasons to be freaking out that this Republican Governor is about to become President of my alma mater. He defunded Planned Parenthood, hurt public education with conservative voucher programs, supported anti-union legislation, opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, and enacted voter ID laws that primarily negatively affected young, elderly, and minority voters…just to name a few things. But the thing that will enrage most of my blog readers is what he had to say about atheists in 2009:

People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we’re just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone’s certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they’ve come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

When I was at Purdue, I founded the Society of Non-Theists, a student organization for atheists, agnostics, and irreligious students on campus. I founded it because I felt like the only atheist on campus, and Purdue was not a welcoming place to me. Over the years as my old club has grown and grown, so many people have thanked me for providing a place where they can openly discuss their non-theism without fear or stigma. And now Mitch Daniels is slated to be President.

Let’s be honest. Purdue is one of the most socially backwards universities in the Big 10, if not the most socially backwards. We’re always dead last when is comes to having GLBT resources on campus, and the community is hostile to anyone who isn’t a white, conservative Christian. My only hope before was that the administration was very supportive, even if the students and greater community wasn’t. Now I’m not so sure.

During my time at Purdue, I was also a member of the President’s Leadership Class. 30 of the ~7,000 incoming freshmen were selected for PLC based on their academics and exemplary leadership abilities. We met in the living room of President Jischke’s house every Monday to discuss leadership, receive training, and make connections. They were fostering us to be the leaders of tomorrow.

The leaders of tomorrow don’t discriminate against atheists, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals.

If you’re a Purdue student or alumni, please email the Presidential Search Committee and trustees@purdue.edu and let them know why you don’t support Mitch Daniels as President of Purdue.

Feminism and Sansa Stark

Warning: This post contains Game of Thrones spoilers, especially for the first book/season. There are vague spoilers for books 2 and 3, but I haven’t read past that yet.

I recently read an interesting piece titled “In Defense of Sansa Stark” that viewed the character from a feminist perspective. The author argued that Sansa is so widely hated as a character because she’s a feminine pre-teen girl:

“As a massive fan of Sansa, even I must admit that she is difficult to like at first. She’s spoilt and a bit bratty. She fights with her fan-favorite sister and trusts characters who the reader knows are completely untrustworthy. She is hopelessly naive and lost in dreams of pretty princes and dashing knights. She acts, for all intents and purposes, like the eleven year old girl that she is. Most of us were pretty darn unbearable to older people at that age (and that’s fine, because they were also pretty unbearable to us). Robb and Jon, although older than Sansa, are similarly misguided and bratty, with Jon’s constant “poor me, I deserve so much more” attitude at the Wall, and Robb’s clumsy attempts at being the Lord of Winterfell. But these mistakes are only reprehensible to readers when they come from a girl, interested in girly things and making girly mistakes. Because viewers have been taught that “girly“ is automatically bad.”

You should read the whole post if you’re interested in the series. I think it could apply to some fans who hate Sansa – I haven’t exactly chatted with every A Song of Ice and Fire fan. But as someone who initially hated Sansa nearly as much as Joffrey, I have to say that’s not why I hated Sansa.

Sansa originally contains every quality I loathe. She’s incredibly spoiled and a giant brat. She’s gullible and demonstrates absolutely no ability to think for herself – she just parrots whatever she’s told and never applies any critical thinking. She’s naive to the point of delusion, where she refuses to admit that the world around her isn’t a perfect fairy tale, even when provided with ample evidence. And worst of all, she has no moral compass. Instead of standing by her sister Arya, she lies because marrying a prince is more important and leads to the death of an innocent child and her pet wolf. Instead of standing by her father Ned, she tattles on him and ultimately leads to his death. She has no loyalty or honor.

And frankly, I’m miffed that the author thinks this is all okay because that’s “the eleven year old girl that she is.” The assumption that all eleven year old girls are vain, gullible, boy-crazy brats with no shred of ethics is just as sexist as someone hating Sansa because she likes dresses and is good at needlework. I certainly wasn’t that way when I was an eleven year old girl!

I don’t hate Sansa anymore. She’s grown a lot as a character through books 2 and 3. She’s become kinder and stronger, and it’s impressive that she deals with the daily torture she receives. If I were in her shoes, I would have jumped off a high castle wall long ago, or tried to stab Joffrey with fork knowing I’d die trying. I still don’t like her, though. She’s still gullible and not the brightest tool in the shed. And she’s so passive – instead of actively trying to improve her situation, she basically sits around waiting to be rescued. Cersei, Daenerys, Margaery and Catelyn  are all feminine characters, but they’re proactive about their situations.

But while I no longer hate Sansa, I still dread reading her chapters. Is there a single Sansa chapter where something goes her way? It’s depressing to read about her getting screwed over for the umpteenth time. I feel like her only role in the story is to be a victim, which just depresses me.

This is post 39 of 49 of Blogathon. Donate to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Depressing infographic of the night

Click here to see a larger version:

My initial reaction: Holy fuck is that biased. The only group that comes even close to a 50/50 gender split is Time Warner, and they’re at 67% men, 31% women. If there are any topics where women should be interviewed more often than men it’s abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, and women’s rights…but we’re not even close to 50/50! The best ratio for interviews about women’s interests is 52% men, 31% women. Add this to the list of Reasons Why The Main Stream Media Depresses the Fuck Out of Me.

My reaction upon more reflection: I wish I had the data for a control group of random topics. Is this better or worse than average? I’m not sure which would be more depressing.

After a little digging, this was the best I could find (from the same group):

Looks like some categories fair better than others. Women’s rights has more women interviewed than usual, but abortion has less. But across the board, women’s representation is pathetic.

This is post 36 of 49 of Blogathon. Donate to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Video: Susan Jacoby at the Women in Secularism conference

Susan Jacoby had the difficult task of taking on the 8:30am slot during the Women in Secularism conference…and she rocked it. It’s a long talk, but worth the time:

One of my favorite parts was when she talks about how some men have responded when people ask why more women aren’t involved with secularism… “Because women are stupid” they told her. We looked around the Women in Secularism conference wryly, wondering why the audience was mostly women. Obviously using the same logic, it’s because men are just stupid.

Pro-tip: That logic is terribly wrong.

This is post 16 of 49 of Blogathon. Donate to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Female Michigan legislators to perform Vagina Monologues at their capitol building

This is such a fantastic response to a mind-numbingly stupid controversy. For those of you who aren’t up to date, Michigan legislators barred Rep. Lisa Brown (D) from speaking in the House after she used the word “vagina” during a debate on an anti-abortion bill. Yes, people are losing their shit over the word “vagina”:

“That comment would be very inappropriate,” [Rep. Rick Johnson (R)] said. “You have young children? Is that something you want them to hear from your state rep?”

Actually, yeah, I wish young children had comprehensive sex education and didn’t respond to the medical terminology for a body part the way you do. Heaven forbid they know about vaginas in addition to arms, stomachs, brains, eyeballs, and what have you. Heaven forbid little girls know about their bodies! Why, we can’t have that – they may start touching their vaginas then! APOCALYPSE!

And this:

“What she said was offensive,” said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.”

Uh…does this guy realize that (most) women have vaginas? I think this says it all:

But female Michigan legislators have come up with a wonderful idea to protest this puritanical nonsense. On Monday they’ll be performing the Vagina Monologues on the steps of the Michigan capitol building, led by Eve Ensler herself (who wrote the play). The legislators include Senators Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) and Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing), and Representatives Barb Byrum (D- Onondaga), Stacy Erwin Oakes (D-Saginaw), Dian Slavens (D- Canton Township), Rashida Tlaib (D- Detroit), Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield), Vicki Barnett (D-Farmington Hills), Joan Bauer (D-Lansing).

This is such a fabulous idea. If you’re in Michigan, check it out and email your legislators messages of support (or messages of anger, depending on their stance).

This is post 11 of 49 of Blogathon. Donate to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Creepiest pickup line ever?

Seattle buses provide ample opportunity for creepy, bizarre, and/or uncomfortable situations with strangers. The one I just witnessed is the current “winner,” as the creepy older guy managed to somehow simultaneously hit on and witness to an attractive young woman sitting behind me.

Guy: You’re so beautiful, intelligent, and spiritual.. I know because I can look into your soul through your eyes, because I’m a warrior of Christ. I’d love to have a relationship with you.
Gal: Um…no thank you
Guy: Well if you change your mind my address is (address) and you can visit whenever you like…you’re so wonderful.

He then proceeded to ask her questions about her name, age, profession, and if she would go on a date with him for the next 15 minutes…which she stupidly answered, albeit in a way that screamed “please stop talking to me.” EDIT: Hopefully she was giving fake information. When she got off the bus he started chanting all these facts to himself, including the intersection she got off because he assumed that’s where she lived. He then started groaning about how hot she was and how badly he wanted her for the rest of the bus ride, until he got off at his stop.

Lesson 1: Don’t give personal information to creepy people on the bus. Eek. WTF. I hope this guy doesn’t turn out to be a stalker. Women are socialized to be polite even in situations that make them incredibly uncomfortable. We need to feel more comfortable saying “No” or “Please stop talking to me” or even moving to another part of the bus.

Lesson 2: Women have to deal with this stupid shit all the time.  I had a similar event happen about a week ago where an older man tried to convince me to get off the bus with him to go on a coffee date, and was trying to pry all sorts of personal information out of me. Even though this time the guy wasn’t talking to me, I was incredibly uncomfortable. I was worried about the young woman (who was the same age as me) and worried that he may start talking to me next. It’s worse because a bus is a situation where you feel “trapped.” You can technically get off (if it won’t make you late for something important), but there’s the chance someone will follow you, so staying trapped on the bus with that person is actually the safer situation.

I know a lot of guys don’t understand why getting hit on by strangers can make many women so uncomfortable. I hear “I’d love random women hitting on me!” all the time. But when you can’t ride the bus in peace…when you dread sitting at a bus stop with other people because they’ll do the same…when you stop wearing nice or flattering clothes because you want to decrease your odds of receiving wolf whistles and cat calls…when you have no idea if any of these people are potentially dangerous…

“Flattery” turns into “fear” very quickly.