every day is an experience, whether you want it or not...

[lagilman]

Last night I abandoned earlier plans in order to attend the vigil for Dr. Tiller (the doctor murdered for performing medical abortions) down in Union Square, unofficial home of all such things.

There were actually two vigils -- the 'official' one sponsored by Planned Parenthood and other local organizations, and a 'solo' effort led by an impassioned but somewhat emotionally disorganized woman. The PP organizers asked her to join with them, but she seemed unwilling. She wrapped up her bit just before the PP one started, thankfully, so we didn't have conflicting speakers, and the crowd merged quietly. I'm not good at estimating from within a crowd, but we had a more than decent turnout for two hours notice, filling the entire south side of the square.

Some moving speeches from people who had known or worked with Dr. Tiller, some speeches from local politicos, including the woman who helped pass the free clinic access law here in NYC (that gave cops the right to arrest anyone who tried to block access to a clinic for any reason or by any means, a law that is sadly still needed here in the five boroughs), and several medical workers. Most telling moment: when one woman talked about hearing the news in the background and thinking it was a retrospective of past decades, because she couldn't believe "it was happening again, now."

I left before the vigil was over, because I was starting to get the "must get out of crowd" feeling that usually keeps me out of said crowds, and then something happened that I'm still processing, but figure talking about it might help.

As I was walking away from the crowd, I encountered a woman having a...discussion is too polite and too formal a word for what she was doing, with one of the men behind the information desk. He was doing his best, but there were people waiting who needed to get info from him, and so he was distracted -- and also, sometimes woman-to-woman is more effective: well-meaning guys can feel they don't actually have a right to voice an opinion, and get hamstrung even when talking to an anti-choice female. I saw an opening, and chimed in, distracting her away from him and onto me.

She was actually, on the surface, reasonable. She agreed that violence of any sort was wrong, and expressed sorrow that it had gone that far. Then she started in on the "life is sacred from conception" routine. Which I countered with "what about the living?" -- the women whose birth control failed and aren't ready for this, the eleven year old children who have been raped (there was a recent legal case in NYC that had been mentioned during the rally, so I wasn't just pulling emotional scorecard out of thin air), and the babies already in the system who needed homes before any more unwanted children were brought into the world.

After a few sentences, I was pretty sure she wanted to air her mind rather than hear mine, so I was willing to let it fade and move on, after we'd done the nominal exchange.

And I realized after a few seconds more that she was leaning in far closer than I felt comfortable with -- actively invading my personal space. It was enough that I asked her to step back. She refused. I put my hand up, palm out, to indicate that she was too close and repeated my request: please move back. She refused again.

"Fine," I said. "Then I'll step back." And I did so. And she accused me of being violent, and of using violence in my argument, and she couldn't talk to anyone who insisted on being violent.

WTF? Because I insisted on my right not to have her leaning within six inches of my face? Because I stepped backward away from her? We were both, I'd estimate, within the same decade [she was older], and about the same height, although I carry more muscle-weight, so it's not as though I had the physical drop on her, or anything. And I was dressed in casual, non-threatening attire (jeans and a blue shirt, no slogans or buttons or anything even remotely aggressive).

I told her that invading someone's personal space was the aggressive act, and walked away at that point, having her repeating over and over again that I was violent, that I was trying to win my argument with violence.

I've been going over the encounter in my mind since then, trying to think what it was that set her off -- was it that she ran out of arguments and had to fall back on that? But why that particular phrase? I've been called a baby-killer before, outside clinics, I know there are far more effective insults and conversation-stoppers that can be used. Was she hoping that one of the nearby cops was going to arrest me? The local cops were far more likely to give her shit for walking into a very calm, orderly crowd and trying to incite. Had my upraised hand triggered something in her brain? (I used the same body language I'd use with an unfamiliar dog: I kept my voice at the same volume but firmed it up, and didn't even come close to touching her).

It was a small thing, barely a blip, and yet left me with a deeply disturbed feeling about that woman -- and anti-choice protesters in general, even the ones who claim to be non-violent, because in the end all I can conclude is that one of us has a screwed-up sense of 'violence,' and I don't think it's me.

Comments

[rovanda.livejournal.com]

Maybe she's truly opposed to violence, and couldn't cope with knowing someone on her side had stooped to personal violence when the other side hadn't. So then she set out to incite violence in someone of the other side and therefore reassert to herself that her side was right and the other side was wrong. So when you declined to respond to her with violence, she took your physical action of stepping back - violence is a physical action and stepping back is a physical action, right? - and started the process of convincing herself that someone on the other side had been violent towards her, so she still has the right to moral outrage...

[wishwords.livejournal.com]

Odd. Maybe her brain reinterprets actions and words to fit with an expectation of the outcome? Perhaps in her daydreaming about how her presence at the vigil was going to affect people, she had focused on the "evil" attendees being so moved by her arguments that they became violent with her, thus justifying her opinion of them. Then when you reacted to her as if she were the one being irrational, she became aggressive, which you pointed out by asking her to move away, and she couldn't deal with that image of herself so transferred her expectations to you?

Okay, 6:20am is too early to delve into psychoanalysis. Where did I leave my coffee?

[wishwords.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say with my rambling comment below. Coffee, must find the coffee.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Maybe she's one of those uber-literal types, and "raising a hand in violence" just starts at a hand being raised, no matter what its intention?

Sounds to me like she was more than a little unbalanced.

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

I can see why that's sticking with you. :/ I kind of think you summed it up with "She was actually, on the surface, reasonable." I suspect that's as far as her reason goes. :p *hugs*

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

Did someone murder a doctor in NYC recently? I hadn't read about this in the Globe?

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I just found my reply in an earlier post. Sheesh!

[lagilman]

one of the more admired/reviled doctors offering abortions was gunned down in his church, in front of his family, on Sunday in Kansas.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090602/COLUMN01/906020366

[eclectic-writer.livejournal.com]

Oh brother. All it was is someone trying to incite drama so she could "prove" her side was right.

God. This whole thing reeks of ignorance and stupidity. I myself may be pro-life but I would never, NEVER, even imagine something like this. And that doctor, according to so many stories, had done SO MUCH ELSE than simply abortions - even the news media is calling him an "abortion doctor" when he was more like an OB/GYN!

Gah. GAH. I don't want to get started but things like this really bite my butt >:-(

[lagilman]

He was, by all accounts, an amazing man, who saw people in need and did what he could to limit suffering and pain. Can there be a better definition of "medic," not to mention "mensch?"

And now he's gone.


[at the vigil we were informed that another doctor trained in late-term abortion procedures had gone to Kansas to take care of the women who had appointments to see Dr. Tiller this week, so there would be no delay in care. Considering many of those cases were to remove failed pregnancies that were harming the woman, this non-delay is crucial. Kudos to that doctor.]

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Don't you realize that your refusal to be intimidated is a hostile act?

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

My past experience with anti-abortion activists is that so many of them are in denial about the meaning of their own actions that she was projecting on you. I have seen pregnant anti-abortion activists acting in such a manner as to invite physical action upon them--my only explanation is that they were hoping for a physical attack that could cause problems with their pregnancy, and then use it to attack pro-choicers. They had no sense of physical boundaries, or anything like that. She probably was carrying over past experiences of hers.

My own experience of political involvement while pregnant is of fear of attack, and wanting to protect myself and my unborn fetus--such behavior was so totally alien to me.

[lagilman]

Hostile, possibly. But not violent....

[wedschilde.livejournal.com]

Ah, that would be a whack-job.

I have one piece of advice that I carry with me from my Grandfather: Do not argue with old people. Do not argue with the crazy.

That, is of the crazy.

[misofuhni.livejournal.com]

First, what's bothering you is your sense of justice. You felt that you were merely stating your case, and trying to relieve a beleaguered city worker. Kudos to you, you can have your ice cream now.

She more than likely interpreted your requests to 'get out of my face' not so much as a physical thing, but also as a ideological one. Putting up your hand to ward her off, push her back without contact, could be interpreted as a warning of violence to come. Personally, if it were me (and I've been there), I would've just stepped back or placed myself at a 90 degree angle to her body (not face to face, more shoulder to shoulder).

Or, I would've left the crazy alone as I have enough crazies in my own life to deal with.

[lagilman]

hrm. that "you can have your ice cream now" came across as rather dismissive. I had no sense of justice involved at all, actually, nor was I "stating my case." We were not in court, nor was anyone on trial, except possibly in this woman's mind. She was voicing her opinion. I was countering with how I saw the situation. Neither of us were going to change the way the other person thought, and I knew that even if she didn't, which is why I was going to let the conversation fade.

The reason I didn't step back immediately is that, in situations like that, an aggressor will merely move in further, seeing the backstep as an admission of weakness/invitation to come in for the kill. I was trained to do exactly what I did -- make the other person aware that I knew what they were doing, did not like it, and would not give in to it. Passive resistance, without being aggressive or triggery.

[rovanda.livejournal.com]

I'll have to keep that tactic in mind for next time I encounter someone with no sense of personal space - they *always* advance if I back up, so I usually wind up passively standing my ground if it's someone I know and need to deal with, or leaving altogether if it's not.

[dianora2.livejournal.com]

I think she was just nuts.

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

Interesting. "Nuts" is a perfectly good explanation, but it's possible, too, that-- oh, spit it out, Kzin.

You set your boundaries. As I see it, the whole point of the anti-choice movement is to get so far inside women's boundaries (first with abortion, then, perhaps with birth control) that -- you didn't do as she is conditioned to do, and she took that as threat.

It sounds odd, but it's what I can come up with.

[filamena.livejournal.com]

Crazy, maybe.

I have to wonder if it wasn't more premeditated than that, like she was there to start a fight, and when she couldn't find one, she hoped to trick causual observers into thinking there was one. She was clearly baiting you by moving into your space and refusing to back up. When you put your hands up and moved back, she knew she wasn't going to get you to hit back, but your hands were up, so maybe she hoped someone in the crowd would -think- you hit her.

It wasn't you, it was her looking for a fight. Your only mistake, if you can even call it that since you were clearly trying to take a bullet for the guy behind the table, was in engaging her in the first place. I am a deeply loving and caring person who will discuss just about anything with anyone, but a pro-life advocate that goes to interrupt a vigil is probably not just 'pro-life' (bet she believes in the death penalty) but also a violent extremist.

And God bless you for supporting a real humanitarian in his death and exposing how crazy the extremist are. You should send the story to local papers or something.

[0eris0.livejournal.com]

Yup, she's a crazy looking for a way out and was saying "violent" loud enough for cops to take notice. You did the right thing and backed up. It's probably why the guy didn't want anything to do with her because especially in his situation, who are they going to arrest, this lady or a dude.

I'm glad nothing did happen and I'm sorry you couldn't have a decent debate with someone. Eesh...some people don't want to have their beliefs challenged anymore.

[lagilman]

I wouldn't assume that she was there to start a fight -- Union Square is a major metro stop, and there were still crowds left over from the greenmarket, plus commuters. She was on the outskirts and could quite possibly have been passing by on her way home when she saw the volunteer manning the info table.

[irismoonlight.livejournal.com]

It stuck with you because you're still trying to be fair to someone who had no intention of being fair, trying to be just to someone who had no intention of being just, trying to consider rationally the behavior of someone who was unhinged.

Seriously. Who goes to a vigil for a murdered person to argue for the political position of those who murdered him? Nobody sane. Nobody rational. Nobody who gives a shit about the grief and outrage of those at the vigil.

Just showing up was a political act on her part, one in which she hoped to incite violence against herself/sacrifice her own safety in order to draw attention away from Dr. Tiller's assassination. Nothing you did would have made any difference.

She was hoping to incite something from you. When you did nothing but talk to her, she got frustrated. She tried to provoke it or create it out of thin air. You can call it projection, you can call it insanity, you can call it political theater, but for goddess' sake don't search YOUR conscience for something YOU did. That's an echo of society's training that if something bad happens to you, it must be your fault... not the fault of the crazy who made it happen. Crazy/sociopathic/rapist people play on that training. No point in falling into THAT trap.

And so what if she was just happened onto the event? She was still incredibly insensitive to the feelings of those who were there to express their grief. And she was deliberately trying to provoke drama.

[lagilman]

oh don't worry, I'm pretty secure in my own actions here. It's more her mindset that has me puzzled -- did my action trigger something she wasn't aware of? Was it, as you say, political theater (quite possibly). Or was she reacting on a purely emotional level, unable to escape the loop? Who is she, that she did these things, and how did our intersection trigger the result?

I wonder these things. Mainly so I can use them in fiction, later. Occupational hazard.

[barbhendee.livejournal.com]

Me too.

Is this an expression of extreme passive aggression?

[allaboutm-e.livejournal.com]

I am puzzled as well.

[sbennettwealer.livejournal.com]

You every notice how folks like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh can be as offensive and incendiary as they like, but when someone challenges their views/tactics/tone, etc., then *they're* the ones who are being threatened somehow? I'm tempted to lump this lady in with that crowd. Itching for a fight, looking for one where it doesn't exist, lashing out, blind to - and even threatened by - logic or an opposing point of view.

[dancinghorse.livejournal.com]

Projection was my thought, too. It's rife in the far-right demographic--we've said for years, "If you want to know what a winger is up to, look at what he's accusing his enemies of doing." I am sorry you became the designated target.

I would be interested to see statistics on how many anti-choicers have had abortions or helped relatives (especially daughters) get them. Also the stats on how much the number of abortions (allegedly) increases when wingers are in power, even as violence against practitioners drops significantly. Hypocrisy is so integral a part of this demographic in so many other ways. I don't find it hard to believe that those particular things may be true as well.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

I think she was worked up and in her frame of mind, took your requests to move back as a threat, so much so that when YOU moved back, she percieved it as you getting into a threatening posture.

Some people, when they get into that mindset, cannot be reasoned with and your only option is to walk away or risk it truly escalating into real violance instead of mistaken voilance.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing the hand raising triggered something in her.

Or she's just batshit..... *shrug*

I can understand how that would stick with you, though. Bleah.

[infiniteviking]

That does seem to be the kindest explanation.

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

I go with projection.

Btw, that was a thoughtful act on your part to get her away from the info desk so the guy could do his job.

[theantijoss.livejournal.com]

I don't know, "violence" from this crowd seems to read as "anything I disagree with and that gets in the way of my agenda." Because how they can cite violence after what happened to Dr. Tiller is just more proof of their complete separation from any logic or reason whatsoever.

[fatbaldguy60.livejournal.com]

Crazy woman is crazy.

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

This article is old, but it tells a pretty nasty tale of hypocracy. (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

This is actually what I was thinking, too. She wanted suricattus to back down, and when that didn't happen, she was threatened, and interpreted it as violent, even though it wasn't.

"Nuts."

[dancinghorse.livejournal.com]

That's an impressive article. I wonder if there have been recent, peer-reviewed clinical studies of this?

John Cole has a devastating blog up today about how everybody is in everybody else's damned business. He is dead-on right.

[miintikwa.livejournal.com]

It's a good question. I'll poke around and see if I can find anything.

Yes. It's utterly wrecked, how much this country cares about what goes on in private people's lives. Personal responsibility isn't, any longer.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

She sounds like a nutcase to me. We get a lot of this sort of thing. It leaves you wondering whether the conversation you've just had is out in the real world, or in someone's head, so greatly does the other person's interpretation of it differ from what just happened. We've just been through it with someone who is bipolar, and our ex lodger (whom I think is borderline) used to do it, as well. Nasty, though.

[mt-yvr.livejournal.com]

Susan, my mother, would back me into corners and yell at me from less than six inches. For over half an hour. Leaving me no escape. I was a teenage male with no clear idea how to handle myself, my innate response to this or her. I have a large temper and frankly this was goading. I never once, for the record, hit her or touched her. Ever.

I did, however, tell her clearly as best I could: please back up because I wasn't sure how long I could keep taking this WITHOUT having a reaction that might be physical simply so I could get past her.

I, from that point forward, was told that that I had threatened her. With violence. Enough that she feared for her safety.

And yet. She continued to argue and fight with me in this manner.

The point?

You won't understand it. I am a person who looks to understand myself and the people around me. I work hard at accepting when I'm wrong, correcting those things and moving on. At finding out how I might have missed something in my perspective that another person might have seen. I work at understanding so much. But in recent years? I hit this point where this idealism of being able to, with enough effort, understand? Stops.

Some things just don't make sense. We can sit and guess. We can make up reasons, we can be kind or mean or even fair. But really, we're trying to tack on a kind of meaning that makes sense to US. And it's being put on something that really? Just doesn't.

It doesn't mean she's nuts. It just means, I don't think I'll ever ever understand this kind of person. I don't stop trying to understand, but I've learned to see a limit. For me? This kind of thing is one of them. It makes no sense. Not even a twisted, funhouse mirror sense. It just.. is.

(shrug)

You? By the way? Seriously rock.

[misofuhni.livejournal.com]

The ice-cream was as a 'reward' for doing a good thing (relieving the information person of the time hogger), not in a dismissive manner. Pardon the written lack of inflection. Ya done good, kid.

Now, maybe it's a matter of stature (or maybe it's because I can be a bit intimidating, or so I'm told), but when someone gets in my face and I take a step (or a half step) back, they usually don't come after me. Just my personal experience. Also, not that I'm an expert in interpersonal relationships, but studies have shown that people, when standing at a party in 'conversational mode', are facing one another are either well known to each other or in a defensive posture. Those persons who were standing at right angles to each other were usually found to be total strangers and considered non-threatening. Hence my comment of switching your posture/position to standing 'shoulder to shoulder' rather than 'face to face'.

[misofuhni.livejournal.com]

I almost did an eyeroll there about you trying to get into her head--until the last line. That explains it all.

'Nuf said.

Personally, I think that this person was just a loud-mouther who had a differing opinion and I think you were correct in assuming that she just hit the this place at the wrong time and with whatever on her mind. If you weren't analyzing it for fodder, I would just say brush it off.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I think that is somewhere between projection and insanity, along the lines of the special logic that saying "you have to respect other people's rights" is OMG OPPRESSION!

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Or you can continue to swing your body around to make the person circle around you--which puts you as the dominant person in control of the person's motion.

Round pen work with horses does marvelous things to train humans in assertive body language.

Another thing is to slightly incline your upper body forward, hunch your head down into your shoulders a little bit, pull your lips back slightly from your teeth, and have your hands half-closed. That's a driving posture, and often people will step back from that (as well as horses). Visualize an alpha mare with her ears pinned and her teeth bared, driving a rival away from food or water.

Even these fanatics understand body language like that. I've seen my DH do it to another male--anti-abortionist who'd just threatened me.

[irismoonlight.livejournal.com]

Ah. Okay. I misread your emotional state.

Yes. Occupational hazard indeed. *wry smile*