While cruising around the website Stuff Nobody Likes, I have to admit that this post about members of the doucheoisie who walk around talking on their Bluetooth earpieces cracked me up. I have, on more than one occasion, mistaken some dude talking on his earpiece for a dude doing what some creepy dudes all too often unfortunately do, which is start talking to random women for no real reason and to the benefit of no one. When dudes start to talk to me in public like this, I usually pointedly ignore them, which is a different thing than just plain ignoring someone. Which means that if I’ve been standing around or walking along and a dude with a Bluetooth earpiece starts talking in it behind me, and I found myself pointedly ignoring someone who actually took no notice of me in the first place. Then I feel bad, like I insulted this dude whose major crime was low level phone douchebaggery, instead of the higher level douchebaggery of treating women like we’re public property. At what point I feel I should return to just plain ignoring him instead of pointedly ignoring him, but that’s actually a much harder trick to pull off than it seems. I’d suggest that the solution is that people who are talking on phones in public should actually talk on phones so we know what they’re doing, but then that seems awfully close to blaming the victim of pointed ignoring behavior. Not sure what the solution is, because being open to any asshole talking to me is also not a solution.
97 Responses to “A minor conundrum of modern urban living”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
If someone is talking on a Bluetooth, they are likely to be sufficiently distracted by that that the difference between being pointedly ignored and politely ignored isn’t perceptible to them.
Thanks for introducing me to that site … there goes my Saturday afternoon.
I walk around in an oblivious haze at all times, to the point where men who actually are trying to talk to me fail miserably, not because I’m pointedly ignoring *them* but because I’m blissfully ignoring *everyone.* As you can imagine, this does cause the periodic problem, such as me completely ignoring someone I actually know and would like to talk to even though they are frantically trying to get my attention, or the occasional near-collision with bicyclists, rollerbladers and on a few memorable occasions, automobiles. (Oops.) However, the happy result re douchebag dudes is that they are utterly unable to get my attention unless they physically reach out and manhandle me, at which point I feel totally free to manhandle them back, usually at the top of my lungs. These types much prefer stealth and will instantly go away if you do this, looking for more attentive and/or submissive prey. It works for me…
In July, California (most populous state in the US) becomes one of the growing number of states which bans the use of cell phones in cars without hands-free capability. Bluetooth is the most straightforward solution.
So, despite having similar issues with others over the last couple years, I find myself becoming one of the “who is he talking to?” hordes.
Granted, in my case it will be primarily (almost exclusively) in my car, but it’s all to easy to get out, forget you are wearing the earpiece, and extend the annoyance into the public sphere.
Sorry. I’ll try harder to recognize the existence of my privilege as a Bluetooth user…
:)
As a StarTrek TNGer, I’ve trained any children I’m with to instantly shout “Look, its a Borg!” Hopfully this will be enough to remind you MikeEss.
It used to be in New York that people who talked loudly to themselves on the street were known as “the mentally ill.”
Now, though, these people are everywhere!
And in fact, there are really STRANGE cases where homeless people out on the street asking for charitable donations start talking on their Bluetooth!
“Mother of Christ,” as my friend said when we saw this, “If I don’t have the money for a Bluetooth, I’m sure not giving it to a homeless guy who does!”
Isn’t total ignorance of strangers the default? I mean, I only take notice of people I don’t know insofar as they may be hostile.
Granted, I suppose women may be more vigilant in this, but since when is it acceptable to just start talking to people? On the rare occassions I talk to people outside of work, I generally introduce myself and make sure they are listening/want to be talked to.
Maybe I’m just an equal opportunity grump on this, but I think it’s fine to pointedly ignore someone who’s talking, loudly and publicly, on a Bluetooth device. I just think it’s rude, but I also think it’s rude to do that with a mobile phone–I’m curmudgeonly that way. But I limit my phone use in public as much as possible–most months I use fewer than 100 minutes total and I don’t have a home phone–so I’m certainly not the average person.
I live next to a PA mental hospital. Many of the patients have one-sided conversations. The locals that use phones have learned that having a loud and rambling call can get one an ‘evaluation’.
WELCOME to NYC !
An invention needed to save humanity: planet wide wireless phone jammer.
I hate cellphone.
One of the reasons we find cell phone users in general obnoxious is that our brains desperately try to fill in the missing side of the conversation. All that extra neuron firing frustrates our attempts at tuning out that person, which is actually easier if two or more people are talking to each other. Much of our brain’s activities are an effort to send extraneous input to the background, but this just isn’t possible if that input demands more conscious processing efforts, like imagining half of a conversation. So, it seems to me that the Bluetooth probably compounds this problem by throwing up an extra roadblock for our brains quietly processing the noise and blocking it out.
You can blame your monkey brain for this one, Amanda. And Lisa KS has a spectacularly accomplished monkey brain in this respect. Brava!
This is why I love my iPod so very much. I have no illusions I’m not receiving unwanted male critiques/compliments/propositions anymore, I just can’t hear them. I still notice the leering most of the time, but as I slide ever closer to middle-aged invisibility, doubtless that’ll taper off, too.
Interesting. I refrain from referring to men as a device used to flush out vaginas, because of the possibility that the analogy equates biologically inferior males to sluiced vaginal detris and so could be taken to be mildly complementary.
I prefer the non-sexist term “enema bulb”, which works on assholes of all kinds.
I also make it a point to never, ever talk to women, as part of a general policy of not talking to people in general. Often this causes some confusion, especially if said woman speaks to me first. Many complain about being ignored and marginalized as I become very interested in locating and disposing of all the stray lint on my sleeve.
However, I’m far too enlightened to fall for a transparent trap like that.
This also spares me the embarrassment of being pointedly ignored myself should I have the presumption to address them to, say, point out that they are on fire. It’s quid pro quo, of sorts.
Let’s be honest, when people start talking to each other, without the proper screening process, and especially should they belong to the wrong race, class or otherwise be “creepy”, it can only lead communication, exchange of ideas, understanding and to other bad things.
Well, the button is marked “Blaspheme!”
“doucheoisie” is one of the best new words I have seen in a long time. It’s right up there with “truthiness”.
Interesting. I refrain from referring to men as a device used to flush out vaginas, because of the possibility that the analogy equates biologically inferior males to sluiced vaginal detris and so could be taken to be mildly complementary.
I prefer the non-sexist term “enema bulb”, which works on assholes of all kinds.
I also make it a point to never, ever talk to women, as part of a general policy of not talking to people in general. Often this causes some confusion, especially if said woman speaks to me first. Many complain about being ignored and marginalized as I become very interested in locating and disposing of all the stray lint on my sleeve.
However, I’m far too enlightened to fall for a transparent trap like that.
This also spares me the embarrassment of being pointedly ignored myself should I have the presumption to address them to, say, point out that they are on fire. It’s quid pro quo, of sorts.
Let’s be honest, when people start talking to each other, without the proper screening process, and especially should they belong to the wrong race, class or otherwise be “creepy”, it can only lead communication, exchange of ideas, understanding and to other bad things.
Well, the button is marked “Blaspheme!”
Interesting. I refrain from referring to men as a device used to flush out vaginas, because of the possibility that the analogy equates biologically inferior males to sluiced vaginal detris and so could be taken to be mildly complementary.
I prefer the non-sexist term “enema bulb”, which works on assholes of all kinds.
I also make it a point to never, ever talk to women, as part of a general policy of not talking to people in general. Often this causes some confusion, especially if said woman speaks to me first. Many complain about being ignored and marginalized as I become very interested in locating and disposing of all the stray lint on my sleeve.
However, I’m far too enlightened to fall for a transparent trap like that.
This also spares me the embarrassment of being pointedly ignored myself should I have the presumption to address them to, say, point out that they are on fire. It’s quid pro quo, of sorts.
Let’s be honest, when people start talking to each other, without the proper screening process, and especially should they belong to the wrong race, class or otherwise be “creepy”, it can only lead communication, exchange of ideas, understanding and to other bad things.
Well, the button is marked “Blaspheme!”
Cellphones give off radiation. I use a wired headset to keep the cancer rays a little farther away from my brain. Guess that makes me a douchebag.
Well, not like gamma rays radiation, you know what I mean.
Is this going to turn into another 100+ comment thread of people going “kids nowadays with their damn cell phones”?
I sure hope so, since the last one so much fun to watch.
Ah, phylosopher, you beat me to it. My friends and I always joke that these people have Borg implants.
it’s all to easy to get out, forget you are wearing the earpiece, and extend the annoyance into the public sphere.
About a year ago I was back home and met up with my grandmother for lunch. I beat her to the restaurant, got us a table, and started perusing the menu. She arrived a couple minutes later, still hooked up to her bluetooth.
My first thought was, “Oh no! My Nana is one of those borg douchebags!”
Luckily she noticed it a couple minutes later, took it off, and made a point to mention that she only uses it in the car and under normal circumstances would never walk around like that. Phew!
I have to wonder how much blue tooth/cell phone use has just become a way to say, “Look at me! I am so important I have to be reachable all the fucking time!”
I have to wonder how much blue tooth/cell phone use has just become a way to say, “Look at me! I am so important I have to be reachable all the fucking time!”
Um, no.
I’m a 5-1/2 hour drive away, in CA, from my partner of 15-1/2, attending law school full time.
Our cell phones sure are a nice way to be less lonely.
I have a little plug-in dealy. Reminds me of my tech theater days…
Maybe not everybody is a self-absorbed douche…
Maybe there’s more than one way to look at it…
My term for guys (and it nearly always is guys) who walk around with the headset on all the time is DoucheBorg. That’s a little unfair to at least some of them, but it’s quite applicable to those who yap on the damn things in public toilets. Not only is it disconcerting to have some guy walk up and start yapping next to you while you’re taking a leak in a urinal[*], but it’s damn rude to the person on the other end to be suddenly forced into awareness that the other party to the conversation has been multitasking between conversation and micturation when the sound of the flush arrives.
[*] women may not be aware of this, but urinal etiquette demands that you pretend the guy next to you does not exist. You can be as chatty as you want at the sink, but the rule is that once your dick is out you are presumed to be 100% focussed on the task at hand. So to speak.
After my ipod died and my old cellphone contract expired around the same time, i decided to replace both with a single unit.
My nokia has bluetooth stareo headphones that double as a handsfree headset. There’s no visible mike. When I’m listening to music in the street and I get a call, the music cuts out automatically. i just hit a button on the headphones and start talking to the air, and I don’t really give a crap what Amanda does or doesn’t think of me.
teac, for what it worth, I think there’s a time and a place for borg-itude. While driving is one such time/place, also perhaps in the workplace, with an extension to times when you are “on the clock” but outside your actual office. I can see it being totally useful to mothers of small children (which is interesting, because I almost never see them using this).
But strolling through the farmer’s market on a Saturday afternoon? In that situation, the message is clearly “I am so important that I must be reachable at all times, even if my hands are momentarily occupied picking out zucchini.”
Then I feel bad, like I insulted this dude whose major crime was low level phone douchebaggery, instead of the higher level douchebaggery of treating women like we’re public property.
While it’s not sexual harassment, those Bluetooth things qualify as high-level douchebaggery.
I believe the polite thing to do is raise your hand to your ear to indicate the presence of an electronic device there, and leave it there for about 2 seconds so that anyone who cares can notice that you’re not speaking to them.
Going back to the original intent of the post, I have to say I wish people talked to each other more. I wish douchey guys hadn’t ruined it for everyone. I feel like anytime I make a random comment to a fellow subway passenger, shopper, etc. the immediate assumption is creepy and not kind or fun or helpful.
At what point I feel I should return to just plain ignoring him instead of pointedly ignoring him, but that’s actually a much harder trick to pull off than it seems.
Do you think that someone who is not trying to talk to you could really tell the difference?
But strolling through the farmer’s market on a Saturday afternoon? In that situation, the message is clearly “I am so important that I must be reachable at all times, even if my hands are momentarily occupied picking out zucchini.”
Maybe.
Maybe not. In my case (1) there wouldn’t be a message because (2) my partner’s very busy at her job (yes she works Saturdays and Sundays, and at all hours of the day and night) and when she can take time to call me you damn well better believe I want to talk with her where ever I am.
And having had over two decades of experience with headsets I don’t yell when speaking on the phone. In fact I’m so quiet and handle it so subtly that I can go through a grocery checkout line with no one the wiser that I’m on the phone - because I can carry on two conversations at once (again, theater training).
Not all people talking on cellphones / bluetooths / headsets are “delivering a message” nor are they being douchey.
The reasons are legion. And have little to do with “you.”
And it is a minor conundrum of urban living.
One to which all need to adjust, because it’s not going away any time soon.
Do the douchey folks need to not be so? Sure. But everybody who uses a phone in a place “you” don’t like isn’t necessarily rude, even if “you” don’t like it.
Going back to the original intent of the post, I have to say I wish people talked to each other more. I wish douchey guys hadn’t ruined it for everyone. I feel like anytime I make a random comment to a fellow subway passenger, shopper, etc. the immediate assumption is creepy and not kind or fun or helpful.
Do people really not speak to each other these days? I don’t live in a major city (medium sized midwestern city here) and I grew up in a rural area, so it’s pretty normal to me to strike up conversations with random strangers at places like the grocery store, waiting in lines, etc. I really, really hope I’m not coming off as creepy when I do that.
I’ve worked at bookstores and grocery stores, and have had customers complete their entire transactions with me without ever stopping their cell phone conversations. Made me feel like a machine.
With reference to the Bluetooth: it’s one thing when the person using it has short enough hair so that you can see the earpiece. It’s *really* disconcerting when it’s covered by their hair, so for all you know, they are just talking to their imaginary friends. Or Satan.
@ togolosh: I am TOTALLY stealing “DoucheBorg”!!
when she can take time to call me you damn well better believe I want to talk with her where ever I am.
Yes, that is what an ordinary handset cellular phone is for. You can be out shopping at the farmer’s market, carry your phone in your pocket, hear it ring and/or vibrate, and have a conversation with a loved one right there.
If someone important happens to call in the .4 seconds your hands happened to be busy, you can call them back when wallet and zucchini are safely stowed away, like 9 seconds later when one would imagine the person is not suddenly unreachable (I mean, they were calling you less than 10 seconds ago).
It’s one thing if your hands are otherwise going to be occupied — for instance if you are driving a car, wrangling a three-year-old, doing data entry, or eating a burrito on a break from doing data entry. I’ll even give a break to cyborgs who keep their bluetooth on in places like Home Depot, or sidewalks in midtown Manhattan, because those are semi-professional spaces and in all likelihood that person is legitimately on the clock.
Sunday brunch in a Park Slope sidewalk cafe? Sorry, but you are not too important to put the mimosa down and just answer the phone with your hands.
Happens in the ladies’ room too. I usually try to make as much noise as possible in my stall (including, er, bathroom noises) so they at least have to admit that they’re answering their call from a bathroom stall.
Sorry, but if you’re answering a call while you’re on a public toilet, either it’s a life-or-death matter or you’re a douchebag.
one of these days in the near future when earpiece is the size of modern hearing aid, This phone call will happen:
A: hello? Honey…help, help… I insert my phone earpiece too far, I can’t get it out … no no…don’t channel that mp3 file …ahhhhh….
*Liberace song blasting the ear drum*
Does this mean that you find a difference between someone who has his hand up to his ear, making his cell phone obvious to all who see him, vis a vis the guy who has a small head set, which may not be visible from your sight angle?
Or is using a cell phone in public automatically “douchebaggery?”
Just can’t see what the problem is. They’re talking to someone else? Who cares? Aside from people who talk on the phone when they should be talking to you- as mentioned above, during a transaction- I always think people who complain about cell phones and bluetooth (blueteeth?) are people who just like bitching.
ivyfree: The problem is that the immediate assumption is that they’re talking to YOU, which is distracting and annoying. Having their hand held up to their ear is a good signal that they’re not, so it’s not distracting, therefore not annoying, therefore not as much of a problem.
I am not about to wonder around in a city where everybody is talking to themselves like it’s some sort of open space mental asylum.
Amanda is about a step away from writing posts about “those damned kids and their two-sizes-too-large pants and what’s with them wearing their baseball caps back-to-front and whatever happened to calling your dad ’sir’?”
“Yes, that is what an ordinary handset cellular phone is for. You can be out shopping at the farmer’s market, carry your phone in your pocket, hear it ring and/or vibrate, and have a conversation with a loved one right there. ”
Sorry, I use a bluetooth. I *do* need to be reachable for work, but in addition, I have neck/back problems and a regular handset cell phone aggravates those when I stick between my ear and shoulder so I can use my hands. If Im in the grocery store when the phone rings, no, I’m not going to stop in the middle of an aisle, park my carriage and have a conversation. I’m going to put my bluetooth device on, tuck the phone back in my pocket and continue shopping. I’d rather do that than risk a massive migraine from my neck issues because other people think I look like a “doucheborg” or don’t like the way I handle my personal communication (which really isnt their business anyway so long as I’m not talking loud enough to disturb them).
The problem is that the immediate assumption is that they’re talking to YOU, which is distracting and annoying.”
But that’s YOUR problem. They are minding their own business.
I pay absolutely no attention to strangers when I’m out and about, what they do isnt my business as long as they arent bothering me
Maybe my offense-o-meter is a little haywire today, but isn’t the term “douche bag” sorta contrary to the cause when used to imply something bad about a man?
“bargal20:
Amanda is about a step away from writing posts about “those damned kids and their two-sizes-too-large pants and what’s with them wearing their baseball caps back-to-front and whatever happened to calling your dad ’sir’?”
@bargal:
I think she maybe just needed to write about something relatively non-controversial right now. For instance, the first time you get back in your car after a horrible accident, you probably only want to drive to the grocery store,not cross-country, right?
Broce:
But that’s YOUR problem. They are minding their own business.
@Broce:
If they’re minding their own business in a public space, in a voice loud enough to be heard by everyone around them, chances are they’re crossing the line into *my* business. As my 7th grade history teacher once said, “The rights of yYOURfist end at MY nose.”
Problem is that some cellphone users bellow. Guys, if the person you’re talking to can’t hear you, let them turn up the volume.
One thing I’ve done with the bellowers (not just the ones with the headsets) is to assume they’re talking to me, and answer them. Invariably, I get their finest Dirty Look. No end of fun.
i usually end up thinking they’re crazy and talking to themselves. ha!
“If they’re minding their own business in a public space, in a voice loud enough to be heard by everyone around them, chances are they’re crossing the line into *my* business. As my 7th grade history teacher once said, “The rights of yYOURfist end at MY nose.” ”
As I noted above, as long as I’m not talking in anything louder than a normal conversational voice, the same as I would to a person I was with, I dont see the problem. Unless you’re asking for total silence in public? If I’m shopping with a friend and talking to them, or shopping alone and talking on the phone at the same volume, I dont see why that is a problem for someone else. It’s not their business.
isn’t the term “douche bag” sorta contrary to the cause when used to imply something bad about a man?
How? A douchebag is unambiguously a bad thing. It might have a bad connotation for some people because it’s associated with dirty, scary vaginas, but it’s actually bad because it harms vaginas.
Why is it any of your fucking business how, mechanically speaking, I use my phone? If my conversation is so loud it intrudes on your space, that’s rude regardless of whether I’m talking to a handset, an earpiece, my mother across the table from me, or the Invisible Space Brothers. If it’s not, why should you be making kitty-butt-mouth over whether or not I am actually grasping the mechanical device into which I am speaking?
Really, the complaining sounds like a mixture of legitimate social embarassment (oh, thought you were talking to me, sorry) and the usual snarkiness that attends people thought to be flaunting their wealth and status by displaying expensive gizmo use in public. I remember the same bitching about people who used Palm Pilots (remember those?) or cellphones in public AT ALL.
I have neck/back problems and a regular handset cell phone aggravates those
Yes, that would be a situation covered quite well with the understanding that there is a time and place for bluetooth use. If using a cell phone is impossible for you due to physical problems, then of course you should get a bluetooth and use it whenever. Especially true if you have the sort of job where you actually have to be reachable at all times (though I think far fewer people actually have these kinds of jobs than think they have them, or want other people to think they do, which is one of my major beefs with the ubiquity of cell phones in general).
However, if people just want to talk loudly on the phone 24/7 while gripping a frappucino in one hand and the latest copy of the New Yorker in the other, I will continue to think they are d-bags, sorry.
And, regarding douchebag as a term, I actually favor it as a relatively gender-neutral and non-homophobic, even slightly woman-centered, term. It’s in the same category as “fuck-head”, for me. Just because I call someone a fuck-head doesn’t mean I don’t like sex. Similarly, just because I call someone a name associated with equipment used to clean out vaginas doesn’t mean I don’t like vaginas.
Yeah. Funny how something that was supposed to be so important is gathering dust in millions of bureau drawers just a decade later. Hey, maybe they were just “flaunting their wealth and status by displaying expensive gizmo use in public.”
It’s precisely because a douchebag is an item used to clean out a woman’s vagina that it’s an insult, and a sexist one. We don’t insult people by saying “That dude is a complete eyewash” or “Look at Ms. Important with her Blackberry, she’s such a fucking Q-tip.”
The fact that a feminist uses a sexist insult doesn’t make the insult nonsexist. You guys defending “douchebag” sound like the assholes who say that homophobia is an incorrect term because it means FEAR of homosexuals.
such a fucking Q-tip
Actually, while I’m not in the habit of saying that at the moment, it doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable to me.
Neither does “asswipe”, for that matter, an insult I commonly employ.
Comparable terms include pitstain, snot-rag, etc.
“Yes, that would be a situation covered quite well with the understanding that there is a time and place for bluetooth use. If using a cell phone is impossible for you due to physical problems, then of course you should get a bluetooth and use it whenever.”
Ah, but how would you know this was the case if you saw me on a bluetooth in the grocery store, or the sidewalk? You wouldn’t. Which sort of goes to the point that one doesnt know *why* someone is using one in the first place, and assuming they’re a “doucheborg” is rather rude. As long as they arent talking louder than they would in normal conversation with someone standing next to them (which could be the case on a bluetooth *OR* a regular cell phone), it’s no one’s concern how they choose to use their phone.
The whole *point* to having a mobile phone is that it’s…well…mobile. I can use it when Im out and about. As a systems engineer, Im required by my employer to be available 24 x 7 x 365, but even if I was just shopping and chatting with my sister, that’s my perogative. The point to having a cell phone is to allow me to be reachable when I’m not at home. For me, it’s a time saver to talk to a friend while I’m doing something else. It allows me to multitask. Im betting most people have cordless phones at home now for the same reason. They arent tied to one spot and can multitask a phone call with something else.
Or perhaps they graduated to Blackberries. Or iPhones. Or Treos.
Bluetooth? Shit, I’m still getting annoyed at people using just regular cellphones in public.
Bluetooth headset use also correlates with other obnoxious behavior — doucheborgs (love it!) are the ones who cluster in sidewalk-blocking groups, whack you with their gigantic laptop bags, take so long to get out of the elevator that the doors slam in your face before you can board, and weave or stop in front of you as the train you needed to catch to go to your second job pulls away. Bluetooth headsets signal broader arrogance and rudeness, a warning that you may be dealing with a self-important jackass.
Obviously there are exceptions. But my experience has generally been that bellowing Bluetoother=asshole.
#44 and #54 - Dead on. The term “douchebag” is exceedingly misogynistic. The protective mucous secretions of a woman’s vagina MUST be the worst thing ever.
I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on “douchebag”. The idea that an item that exists to a) hurt women’s health by b) implying that women are filthy when we are not is a good thing that deserves defense is ridiculous.
It’s actually possible, as I document in my book, to have insults that are anti-sexist. I know! People feel besieged and sometimes we apparently even like to see insult where it’s not there. But take the word “tool”, which is used in our culture in a way that is best interpreted as “tool of the patriarchy”. Sometimes I think people just like to mix up sexism with general rudeness. It’s rude to call someone a douchebag, but it’s not sexist.
DaveV, I think the mucous secretions of a vagina are wonderful things. Which is why douchebags—that wash them away—are bad. Your comment implies that the douchebag is a valuable part of vaginal health, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
Amanda wrote:
Are you sure? You didn’t see what some people saw as obvious racism in the chapter covers in your book, and look where that led.
Fact is, we (apparently) live in a culture in which the intent of the speaker is determined by the inferences of teh listener, so if you use “douchebag” and think it isn’t sexist, but your listener thinks it is, then it is.
sticks and stones may break my bones …
opps, wrong thread. sorry.
Now I want a Bluetooth thingy. I don’t know why it is, but in order for me to work problems out, of whatever sort, it is necessary for me to discuss them out loud. Sometimes that’s with another person. Sometimes that’s with myself - no, having a mental conversation doesn’t have the same effect; there’s a difference between thinking something within my head and hearing it through my ears. Effective thinking also requires physical activity - vigorous walking. Means I’m either pacing back and forth across the living room or on the nearest walking trail, which unfortunately has lots of people in good weather.
But with the earpiece thingies I can just walk down the street talking to myself, and everyone will think I’m rude instead of crazy. Sounds good!
Ledasmom, I distinctly remember a friend or family member describing an encounter with an indigent fellow in the Goodwill (or similar) who was looking for a cell phone–didn’t have to be functional–because he sometimes had head-voices, and while people gave him the stink-eye when he walked around talking to himself, he figured they wouldn’t give him the stink-eye if he walked around talking to himself with a phone stuck to his head.
From the other perspective, my father likes to amble around aimlessly while talking on his headset. Sometimes he waves his arms like an airplane. Doing this in a deserted parking lot in the late evening has led him on at least one occasion to have a nearby cop come over and check on him. Although… this was a few years ago, and perhaps the ubiquity of headsets has led to a greater acceptance of people apparently talking to themselves while making airplane-arms.
(Just for my own reference: that guy was buying my ladyfriend’s father’s old cell phone at a sidewalk sale in Chicago. He started to explain what kind of plan he had on it, but the guy stopped him and said he didn’t need it to make calls; he just needed it as a prop so people didn’t stare at him.)
Fact is, we (apparently) live in a culture in which the intent of the speaker is determined by the inferences of teh listener, so if you use “douchebag” and think it isn’t sexist, but your listener thinks it is, then it is.
I long for the good old days, when I could say whatever I liked, and if people were offended it was because they were girls.
how would you know this was the case if you saw me on a bluetooth in the grocery store, or the sidewalk? You wouldn’t.
Well it’s not like I physically injure or pick fights with people I see wearing bluetooth for no obvious reason. Me thinking “wow, that random stranger is probably a total d-bag…” doesn’t actively hurt anybody.
Though know that I know some people might be using it as a workaround for a disability, I will probably start to temper my annoyance by reminding myself of that. Which is what I tend to do when I see a full-grown and seemingly healthy adult pulling one of those wheelie backpacks, another of my urban pet peeves.
My thought process goes something like this, “Oh, look, another one of those wheelie backpack losers hogging up sidewalk space because they can’t be bothered to use their pwethious muscles to carry their own stuff around… Oh, wait, maybe he has a back problem and can’t carry things easily. Maybe I should lay off?”
Returning to the topic of douchebags (the physical object) and their obvious crappiness, I will never forget the time I sublet the apartment of this righteously awesome ass-kicking feminista I knew, and found actual douching supplies in her bathroom. I was like, “wait, I thought all feminists knew that douching a TOTP…?”
Thanks Dana. Your comments are right on. I’m always amazed when someone decides to be the gatekeeper for all things feminism–without acknowledging that their argument might be at odds with other feminist scholarship. Still, it’s probably far easier to quibble over what is rude and what is sexist rather than actually initiating a thread over the racism and classism in the women’s movement. I’ve read the comments here which suggest that this was a purposefully non-controversial post — but having this option and using it is still an act of privilege. Sorry. Other (white) feminists bloggers have been engaged in the dialogue this past weekend . . .I thank Pam for trying to do the same yesterday.
I’ve read the comments here which suggest that this was a purposefully non-controversial post — but having this option and using it is still an act of privilege.
I have the sneaking suspicion that a lot of the folks crowing about privilege in this whole stupid fight don’t really know what the word is supposed to mean.
It is not, for instance, meant to cover something like “has the fucking nerve not to answer for exactly what I want her to answer for”, or “has not voluntarily shuffled herself into a re-education gulag”.
Every person who has a successful blog has the “privilege” to post about whatever they want to post about. It does not matter the color of their skin or the kind of reproductive equipment they have (or any other membership in an oppressed group). There is no special set of constraints on women of color bloggers that does not allow them to put the pitchfork down and blog about something that will clear the air a little. If they don’t want to, then that’s OK. But they have the ability — the Women Of Color Feminist Blog Stasi is not going to come get them in the middle of the night if they decide to blog about some Seinfeldian annoyance.
For that matter, the whole point of the ‘privilege’ discussion is that one cannot just decide not to have it anymore. You get it by virtue of being in an ascribed group. Really well-meaning white people who never say or do anything racist do not get to shrug off their white privilege, or even chuck it into a closet and forget about it, like yet another stupid kitchen gadget Aunt Sally gave you last year at Chanukah. Amanda uses her privilege simply by existing as a white person. So do I. So do you, if you are white.
This is part of the reason I keep joking about people wanting Amanda to commit seppuku — it’s pretty much the only way she could stop using privilege.
I want EVERYONE who has been involved in this argument (or really, any discussion of ‘privilege’, ever) to go and read The Essay That Started It All, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy Macintosh. Then maybe we can actually start having a real discussion.
I’m not white. I have read MacIntosh. I’d also recommend Allan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference. Patricia Hill Collins has some wonderful resources as well. Of course women of color bloggers can blog about this stuff–they do all the time. The point is not, and should not always, be on women of color to do the hard work of discussing these issues. And, you do a wonderful job paraphrasing MacIntosh in the 4th paragraph. I’m surprised you didn’t continue with the “blank check” metaphor MacIntosh uses quite a bit to get the discussion going. Oh, and way back in the late 1980s, a feminist philosopher named Elizabeth Spelman wrote a wonderful book titled: Inessential Woman. One of the chapters (3 or 4) discusses how race and gender is the “ampersand” problem in feminist thought. It’s a wonderful book and more timely than ever given this situation. I’ve been invited to participate in a workshop with MacIntosh in June. It should be good to see how she’s updating and expanding her views. So, I do think I know something about privilege–and there was never anything in my post that suggested Marcotte engage in a “re-education gulag.”
I’d also like to add that we should all be cognizant of how privilege is always connected to oppression. They don’t exist without the other. This is where Collins’s discussion of the *matrix of domination* is particularly useful.
there was never anything in my post that suggested Marcotte engage in a “re-education gulag.”
You may not have, but I’ve seen it over and over, especially in the comments at Feministe. OMG That Amanda Has The Fucking Nerve To HAVE PRIVILEGE!!1! By doing x, she is just showing that SHE HAVS TEH PRIVLIJ! Burninate her and her privilege!
The implication seems to be that by responding in X, Y, or Z way, Amanda reveals some level of white privilege, and that if she would just stop forcing us to stare white privilege in the face this could all just go away. In other words, that Amanda’s privilege lies in her actions. Which is a very convenient way of understanding white privilege if you are white — avoid airing racial dirty laundry by expressing the proper amount of white guilt and toeing the Well Meaning White Party Line, and your white privilege will magically disappear!
I’m not sure whether well-meaning whites have used their privilege to hijack the original intent so that it’s universally poorly understood (leading even people of color to assume that white privilege = wrong action), or whether most of the anti-Amanda-ites are actually well meaning white people who don’t want privilege to mean what it actually means. Either way, the casual throwing around of that word is driving me nuts.
@Broce:
I don’t believe that every single person who has/uses a cell phone, Bluetooth, PDA, iPhone in public places is automatically a d-bag, Q-tip, or rude bunhole. I think the bottom line is about manners, and consideration for the people around you. It sounds to me as though you use your Bluetooth with discretion and politeness: that makes you rare, courteous, and exempt from the foot-stomping annoyance inspired by the other people who act as though the entire world is their phone booth.
Mrs Nice Guy here. I don’t have Bluetooth, and I never use my hands-free headset, but I am flabbergasted that someone thinks they can tell me what I should be doing while I’m at the Farmers Market. Of all places. Yeah, I’m really being rude to the zucchini.
Mrs. Nice Guy here. I don’t have Bluetooth and I never use my hands-free headset, but I’m flabbergasted that someone wants to tell me what I can and can’t do at the Farmers Market, of all places. Yeah, I’m really being rude to the zucchini.
“Yeah, I’m really being rude to the zucchini.”
Where the hell is the ASPCZ when you need them…?
Oops, sorry
darkchocolate
Still, it’s probably far easier to quibble over what is rude and what is sexist rather than actually initiating a thread over the racism and classism in the women’s movement. I’ve read the comments here which suggest that this was a purposefully non-controversial post — but having this option and using it is still an act of privilege.
@darkchocolate:
I think calling for that conversation, and wanting to have it is a valid thing to do. I also think that when anybody, *anybody* is having a shitstorm of a week, they might need to spend a day in their pajamas, petting their cats, vegging in front of the TV eating Cheetos, before they sally back into the fray.
I believe we’ll have that conversation.
But not today.
Yeah, I’m really being rude to the zucchini.
You’re being rude to the person running the stand, and you’re behaving obnoxiously to everyone around you.
Though the bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is that you* look like someone who is so attached to their Super Important Job That Must Be In Contact With Me At All Times (I’m Very Important, You See) that they can’t cut loose enough to enjoy a weekend morning. Which may not actively hurt anyone, but it still sucks.
If you are so busy at your big important job that you can’t be out of contact with for the fifteen seconds it takes to extricate your cell phone from your pocket, then why are you perusing the wine list in a sidewalk cafe? The conclusion, thus, is that you are using that bluetooth as a prop. Which makes you a douchebag.
* from here on in, I’m using the general ‘you’, not you, personally, Mr. Nice Guy. Just to be clear.
but having this option and using it is still an act of privilege.
Please read my above posts #72 and #75, and click over to my link to read Macintosh’s article.
Amanda’s choice to post about this IS NOT PRIVILEGE. Privilege is the existence of agency in the first place, not the decision one ultimately makes. Privilege does not mean “you did something I don’t approve of.”
For that matter, I’d like someone to explain exactly how Amanda has a level of privilege here that women of color bloggers don’t have.
“Women of color get stuck with the heavy lifting of talking about racism within the movement” is probably not the right answer (they don’t get stuck with it — notice Brownfemipower took her ball and went home, which she wouldn’t have been able to do if she was forced to do the heavy lifting in racial discourse). Not to mention, also, that the universally agreed-upon Well Meaning White Party Line stock answer about feminism and race is “I’m white and can’t really speak for women of color.” You can’t think Amanda should have avoided talking about racial issues at Alternet and also think women of color get stuck with the heavy lifting.
Unless what you actually think is that all white people should self-immolate. Which still leaves women of color with the heavy lifting, as it’s difficult to bear the burden of discussing racism when you are trying to pour gasoline on yourself, and crap, what did I do with that matchbook?
I have to say, if you have a decent farmer’s market, for the love of lunch be polite to the vendors. My favorite tomato lady brought heirloom tomatoes all summer although I was pretty much the only one buying them. Two different vendors let me take home bags of cornhusks for free. Much better to be rude to a friend or a relative than the person with the good tomatoes.
thanks hbsweet. i look forweard to having that conversation. but, to understand the historical depths of the debate, one has to contextualize racism in the women’s movement. so, i don’t disagree with opoponax that macintsoh is a good starting place, but there is a lot of stuff directly related to racism in feminism that is important to read. spelman is an excellent starting point. not to mention: this bridgfe called my back, making waves, making face/making soul, sister outsider, home girls, etc. while her essay is certainly the most famous in and around academic circles, macintosh isn’t the first nor the last to discuss privilege in all of its manifestations.
#61 Amanda - Attempting to putdown a man by referencing a woman’s body or female “hygiene products” is a standard procedure in American male homosociality. Even when I was back in my high school locker room I knew that such references were misogynistic.
I mainly cite Macintosh because her essay is very readable and available in its entirety on the web. But yes, there are many other sources.
You could skip right to the end, knowing where that leads, saving time–but then you wouldn’t get to feel self-righteous and smug that you won another round of Inside the Head Spot the Douchebag Final Challenge Round! And then what fun is that?
I mean, there’s no other logical explanation for rising into operatic umbrage at people who chat in public on cellphones while not actually touching the phone with their hands. It’s like some high-tech version of Emily Post’s evil twin howling in rage that you used the ice cream spoon but not the ice cream fork. FFS, don’t you have less petty things over which to get outraged?
The main reason the wheelie backpacks annoy me is that they take up a lot of room. I live in New York, one of the few places in the USA where sidewalks can get congested and confined spaces like elevators and subway cars are often filled to capacity. Your average person pulling a wheelie backpack will take up the space of 2 or 3 normal people, and that’s a difference that can actually put people out in these parts.
It’s basically the same reason we get annoyed at people who hog 2 or more seats on the subway, don’t exit at the back of the bus, stop to look for their metrocard or send a text message at the top of the subway stairs, walk slowly in the middle of the sidewalk, or park their buggy right in the middle of a grocery store aisle. The vast majority of the 8 million people in New York manage to put personal idiosyncrasies aside and make space for their fellow humans. Those who don’t are considered douchebags by default.
Okay, am I the last person to notice that guy’s headset flashing at me?
I don’t own a bluetooth headset, but I am actually considering getting one. I have seen enough pieces of research associating cellphone radiation with cancer (and just as many debinking those claims), that I have decided to play it safe.
Bluetooth, by design, has much lower powered electromagnetic radiation. It operates at the 2.4Ghz spectrum (unlicensed spectrum - of which we have plenty radiation around us anyway) and consumes low power (60 milliWatts current during use, 0.6mW when not in use - and that’s for the entire decide, not just the radiation part of it). A regular cellphone has two signal strengths - 0.6 Watts when not in use, 3 Watts when in use. The “not in use” power radiation strength of a cellphone, therefore is almost a 1000 times the radiation strength of a bluetooth headset. The “in use” radiation strength of the phone is 500 times the headset.
I’d much rather have a low-powered electromagnetic device next to my head than a higher powered one, thank you very much.
research associating cellphone radiation with cancer
While I get that the overall radiation power is lower on a bluetooth, doesn’t it eventually equal out because you’re wearing it stuck to the side of your face all the time?
I may not be the average user, but I talk on my cell like 5 minutes a day, tops, and the rest of the time it is generally far away from my body (on my desk, in my bag, in the pocket of a jacket hanging on a coat rack on the other side of the room).
Of course, if you’re on your cell all day (usually for work purposes, unless maybe you’re a 13 year old girl), that might make a difference, and in those situations bluetooth is perfectly appropriate. I fully get why people who spend all day on the phone need headsets, and even why said people might leave it on for the sake of convenience when they’re not physically in their office.
But it seems kind of silly to say “I’m worried about radiation from electronic devices. I should totally wear one strapped to the side of my head all the time!”
ks, I live in one of those midsized midwest cities too. I do the same thing, and I notice that plenty of other folks do too. Sounds like you’re just normal out here.
Regarding bluetooth and cell phone power, I can’t speak about the effects of the different amplitudes, but
if you’re not worried about the tons of 2.4GHz microwave radiation that you’re bombarded with constantly, then why worry about cell phones, which operate at lower frequencies of 0.8 GHz and 1.9 GHz?
I could understand being worried about both, or about bluetooth but not cell phones. I can’t understand being worried about cell phones but not bluetooth.
(not a physicist or engineer, honest question)
I’m one of those cel phone bellowers. I occasionally use a bluetooth headset, too. I find it very difficult to control the bellowing, and I’m not sure why. Any lengthy conversation will eventually end with me at an unnecessarily loud volume, no matter where I started out.
On the positive side, I hate the cel phone with a passion and use it as little as possible. Unfortunately I need it for work.
To Grammar RWA: Good question, however: Lower frequencies don’t necessarily correlate with “better for you”. How good or bad a frequency is for you depends on the chemistry of the human body - what molecules resonateat those frequencies, etc. The visible electromagnetic spectrum stertches from 400 to 790 terahertz - and unless you overexpose yourself on the ultraviolet side, you should be alright. On the otherhand, microwaves ovens use the S-band which is in the vicinity of 2.4 Ghz and I wouldn’t recommend poking your hand into a microwave oven while its on. So, from that example, you can see that the amount of damage done isn’t really correlated to the frequency. It depends on 1) amplitude 2)body chemistry and most importantly 3)Power of the radiation source. In the case of a bluetooth device, the power source is about 1/500th of the cellphone (during use) and 1/1000th (during idling)
To the opoponax: Going by the 1/500th figure, you’d have to be stuck on the bluetooth device for 500 times longer to have the same effect. Going by your case: 5 minutes per day of cellphone radiation is equal to 2500 minutes bluetooth radiation. If you sleep 7 hours a day, and keep your bluetooth device on your head for the remaining 17 hours, that is still 1020 minutes. Thus, 17 hours of bluetooth device stuck to your head is still only 40% of the radiation power you would receive from just 5 minutes of the cellphone next to your head. Of course, I am not recommending you (or anyone) stay on your headset for 17 hours - the point I am making is that even if you did, you would still get less radiation than 5 minutes of cellphone usage.
In my case, I probably use the phone for 20 minutes a day - and I might be walking down the street, or in the subway, or driving, or in the grocery store, or hiking during those 20 minutes. I suspect that if I do get a headset, I will use it no more than (and this might be a vast exaggeration - I can’t really predict my usage pattern until I get it) 8 hours a day. For me, 20 minutes of cellphone radiation would be almost 20 times more than 8 hours of bluetooth radiation (going purely by the power metric). So, it makes sense for me.
Correction. I said “So, from that example, you can see that the amount of damage done isn’t really correlated to the frequency.”.
What I meant to say was: amount of damage isn’t correlated to frequency alone. There are other, usually more important factors that play a role.