TexasCHLforum.com

I would be surprised if there was a person out there who couldn't claim a stereotyping story of some sort. I have very short salt-and-pepper hair which I cannot and will not dye (lap swimmer), and I don't wear make-up, do my nails, or wear heels. Occasionally I get addressed in a disrespectful way because the speaker assumes I am a lesbian when in fact I'm a married heterosexual woman. My husband wears his "garage" clothes to the hardware store and occasionally gets treated like PWT who maybe crawled in the door to steal something. It never ends.

Annoyed Man argues his points convincingly. There is a much larger issue at stake here. We are moving into a time period where the acceptance of personal responsibility is increasingly unpopular. Whenever a confrontation of any type occurs, many people now default to narcissistic finger-wagging at the other party, declaring themselves as innocent beyond reproach and the other as the sole source of fault in the equation, when in fact, it always takes two to tango.

The negative social consequences of this practice will be severe and far-ranging. The best thing that each of us can do in opposition to this general degradation of integrity is to consistently ask ourselves, "What part did I play in bringing about the outcomes that I see before me?" The worst thing we can do is cherry-pick the instances in which we claim our fair share of responsibility. If we only step up when the facts of the confrontation suit our individual world views and tastes, then we come across as hypocritical and disingenuous. And that will only contribute to the larger social problem.

mojo84 wrote:

Interblog wrote: Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.

I completely disagree with your analogy and premise. If this guy was just standing around seeking attention and baiting people into an argument or confrontation, that would may be different. However, he was going about his business and was not openly enticing a conflict or confrontation. People need to learn to consider the motivation and agenda of a person or group of people. Someone going about their day to day business and not actively drawing attention to themselves is totally different than someone that is.

Johnston admitted to self-awareness of his own provocation. He was quoted in the news article as such.

Each one of us must claim a healthy degree of ownership in the reactions that we elicit from others. There's another active thread on here titled "Is Deviancy the New Norm?" That thread's OP states, "If you look, act, appear to be a clown of some sort, I'm not going to go along and pretend seeing you and your infantile behavior as normal. I will not ignore you. I'll laugh and afford you zero credibility as a fellow human being." That is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt many "clowns" consider themselves to be "just going about their business". But they do play a role in how they are perceived. Like it or not, that effect of perception is simple human nature.

And a great deal rests in the eye of the beholder. Soccerdad rebutted the general disavowal of responsibility for this effect far more persuasively than I could have, and using much milder examples.

Quote the linked story: “I figured I might get some comments or looks,” Johnston said.

If Johnston didn't want to go to Chicago, then why did he get on that train? He fully knew that he was getting on the train - he said so himself!

Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.