Creep Shaming?

Post Reply New Topic

This is a term I see a lot in the social justice community. The term basically means the shaming of men who are perceived as crossing women's boundries. If creep shaming was limited only to men who rape and invade women's spaces, I wouldn't have a problem. However, I often see the term used by women who are offended by a man simply looking at her or striking up a casual conversation in an elevator. Heck, I've even been called creepy just for being one of the quiet kids at my old high school.

So is this a term that is problematic, or is it a non issue?

Stopping a man behaving improperly? Absolutely right and proper.

Asking a man who isn't behaving improperly to stop a behaviour that makes a woman uncomfortable? Absolutely right and proper.

Shaming a man who has not behaved improperly? Bullying. Plain and simple.

I have no sympathy for bullies, and bullying causes me to lose sympathy for their discomfort at the conduct complained of.

I don't believe in making women uncomfortable, but if a man isn't doing it intentionally, shaming him does seem like bullying. Letting him know it's making her uncomfortable seems to be the best thing to do.

This creep shaming is a witch hunt that will bring nothing but trouble. But who am I to care? Human beings are idiots. Harassment laws are misused and of course lead to a lot of people gaining a criminal record which ruins the economy. But hey, who cares?

What kind of shaming are we talking about? How is it accomplished?

Stopping someone who is actually behaving improperly, of course that's right.

But if someone, male or female, is made uncomfortable by behavior that is not improper, then that is their own issue. They have every right to stay home if normal socially acceptable behavior makes them so uncomfortable.

Interesting topic.

I dunno...I creep women out just by my mere presence. At this point in my life, I'm beyond shaming so it doesn't really matter how women respond. If a woman wants to be a b!tch about it, that's her problem, not mine. I have just as much a right to consume oxygen as she does.

I do have one advantage, though, and it is that as I get older my appearance commands more respect than it used to, even if I AM still ugly as sin.

OK, example of something that happens to me on a regular basis: For some odd reason, I'm a lot quieter than most people and I tend to need to go to places where you generally don't expect other people to be. So I'm walking through a very dark area of this building where a church youth group is meeting. All I wanted to do was go to the room where I keep all my stuff so I could grab my bass before I went upstairs. About that time, a teenage boy and girl came down the stairs going the opposite direction. The girl freaks out and screams. So, I'm like, "aw, come on! I'm not THAT ugly!" Everyone laughs it off and moves on with life. Normally I try to avoid this kind of thing by snapping my fingers, humming, whistling, or otherwise generating some noise just to let people know I'm not trying to sneak up on them or something. However, we met each other too suddenly, and I wasn't expecting anyone in that part of the church, either.

So while I admit that my behavior is often more than a little odd, I think I'd rather deal with someone just being creeped out by me than everyone thinking I'm some kind of ax murderer.

I disagree. It is incumbent on a person to know their audience. What is socially acceptable behaviour in a group of friends might be unacceptable in the presence of a work colleague. What is socially acceptable among teens might be unacceptable in the presence of a parent. What is socially acceptable among men, might be unacceptable in the presence of a woman.

There is a principle in law called, "the thin jawed plaintiff rule," and its analog applies here. If you intend to say something, you intend its consequences. Even if most people would find what you say acceptable, you are responsible if what you have said has caused offence to a person who has heard it.

Any person who is offended by the conduct of another is free to ask that person to stop. And the norms of a well ordered society suggest that it is incumbent on a person who has been told that their behaviour is offensive to be guided accordingly. There is, of course, no compulsion on the person who is being offensive. But to suggest that a person has every right to stay home is to suggest that victims are responsible for mitigating the offence caused by others.

I agree with this, and was already taking it into account.

I have an easier time expressing myself by giving examples so, please, bear with me here.

Say a man is behaving as though he is in a bar with his friends, while actually in a business meeting. Of course it would be reasonable for those who are offended by his behavior to explain to him that it is inappropriate.

But say that same man is behaving as though he is in a bar with his friends, while actually in a bar with his friends. In that case, I would think a person who felt the need to complain should strongly consider the possibility that it is their own expectations, rather than his behavior, that are causing the problem.



I think there are limits to when that should apply.

Another example; I get uncomfortable sometimes when the subject of religion comes up. I do not think it would be unreasonable for me to ask for a change of subject if it were, for example, a guest in my home who started talking about god. However, if I were to walk into a church, any discomfort I felt at the subjects being discussed would be my own responsibility for having gone there in the first place.



I think that "victim" is a loaded term. It implies that the person who has taken offence has good reason for taking offence. While this may often be true, what I was referring to are those people who have taken offence for no good reason. You may or may not agree that such people exist.

You say that "to suggest that a person has every right to stay home is to suggest that victims are responsible for mitigating the offence caused by others." I say that "it is incumbent on a person who has been told that their behaviour is offensive to be guided accordingly" suggests that every instance of a person taking offence is justified.

Last example; There are still plenty of people who would be offended by the sight of an interracial couple. Say one such person were to complain to such a couple. Would it then be incumbent on that couple to modify their behavior so as not to cause offence to the bigot?

And now to try to relate all that back to the topic at hand. What I'm trying to say is that the use of the word "creep" to describe a person is not always justified.

If a person follows all the generally accepted social rules; allows people their personal space, takes "no" for an answer when approaching members of the opposite sex, does not behave in an aggressive or overtly sexual manner etc., then that person does not deserve to have that label applied to them.

However, all too often, I've seen it used to describe people (usually, but not always, men) who've crossed a line that they could not possibly know about because said line only existed in one individual's head.

I've heard it argued that what creeps people out is subjective and, as such, the label is never inaccurate. I agree about the subjective nature of creepiness, but see that as a reason for the offended party to consider very strongly whether it was the individual's actions or their own expectations that were unreasonable. Especially before applying a label to that person that is not only hurtful in and of itself, but can lead to negative treatment of that person by others.

I think there is a world of difference between saying "I was uncomfortable dealing with that person" and saying "that person is a creep." The former expresses one's feelings, the latter assigns blame to another for one's feelings. I believe that, while such blame is sometimes (maybe even often) applicable, that is not always the case.

Last edited by mds_02 on 29 Jan 2013, 9:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Good questions. I believe it occurs in situations where men behave in ways that are unacceptable to females. They use the word "creepy" (or some other magic smear word), usually in front of an audience of peers. I've had this happen to me a few times and I didn't understand what they were doing, or why I should care. I only understand it abstractly. If the target doesn't care about social approval it will have no effect on him.

Simultaneously I also believe he has the right to shake his head, shrug, and say "I didn't understand a word of that" if it were her projecting a whole lobby or public place as her personal/private zone (ie. in the case of a churl who just needs to grow up).

I used to get undo attention from women and it wasn't healthy - ie. either giddy/euphoric or hate on first sight but either way it would be incredibly unstable and dangerous. I had to learn to a) not take it personally and b) stand up for myself by bluntly treating them like they weren't there.

What about men who aren't actually doing anything improper at all, but simply make a woman feel uncomfortable because she finds him freakishly ugly or finds his mannerisms unusual and a little bit frightening? i.e. The guy isn't actually doing anything wrong at all. He's just making a woman, or a subset of women, uncomfortable but that does not extend to every woman, or even most women.

We call this "victimhood".

Some people (extremists, usually) take offence at nearly any difference of opinion or of criticism even if that criticism is polite and moderate. You can't mollify those people without censoring one's own right to free speech.

What about people who become offended on someone else's behalf on topics that, if the person who was meant to be offended was actually there, wouldn't actually be offended at all and would actually tell the "offence taker for others" to grow the hell up?

Some people have just been done to or set up in ways where they believe everyone wants them or everyone is hitting on them - and sadly more often than not they may be right. I try not to be a prick about that, ie. I get how the world works, but I'm also careful to know the difference between when to be compassionate and when to bat someone's ego trip back at them.