Talk:Civil inattention

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copying/Major edit needed

This page appears to be entirely copied from one source. I'm not sure what the Wiki policy around this type of article is, so if someone will tag it properly, that will be appreciated. Perhaps a move to Wikitionary? Paul Haymon 07:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has been dealt with. Thanks, --jjron (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page only seems to discuss the negative aspects of civil inattention rather than the positive ones. I would like to add some positive aspects of it. Amschie (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quote is presented from this Hoffman person. They say, "when men and women cross each other's path at close quarters, the male will exercise the right to look for a second or two at the female ..." However, this statement and the story woven around it has several major flaws. It assumes that women are sexless- that they do not also look, or do not have equal right to do so. It describes how sexual behavior as normal as looking must be seen as dangerous and anti-social. Finally it presumes that men and women do not "gaze", as I'm sure the author would rather describe it, at members of the same sex. Misogynist, LGBT-erasing, and promoting a culture of fear and distrust; all the better for the writer to paint men as aggressors, and women their victims, in a fantasy narrative. This work and its fruit do not belong in any work of fact. --97.87.9.107 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible/non sequitur?

Goffman noted that "when men and women cross each other's path at close quarters, the male will exercise the right to look for a second or two at the female ... Civil inattention, then, can here involve a degree of role differentiation regarding obligations".[9] Such a public double standard has been challenged by feminists, who resent the expectation that female appearance or behavior may be routinely commented on.

The part about men's "right to look for a second or two at the female" is quite incomprehensible to me, since the article seems to have established, before, that the whole concept of civil inattention necessarily involves looking briefly at one another in passing. I suspect this quote is somehow about something else, but it's rather mysterious.

And what does one (looking at a passing female stranger) have to do with the other (commenting on women's appearance or behaviour)? Again, I can imagine there is some meaningful context in the (single?) original source, but I'm at a loss about how all of it ties together. 2A02:8108:1140:945:244B:BAAF:C1CF:404C (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) (English is not my first language.)[reply]