The Difference Between Assertiveness & Aggressiveness
The issue isn’t that Danielle Mitchell was wrong to establish a boundary - she most certainly should - but that she tried doing so by imposing her personal norms on others.
The story of a woman named Danielle Mitchell is making the rounds on social media. She describes an incident that occurred in a parking lot when a stranger tried approaching her and her son. She tells her story on TikTok (the bane of our existence):
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
This initial video sparked spirited debate, including condemnation for what many perceived as an overreaction on her part. As a result, she released a follow-up video to contextualize the incident:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
The facts of this incident as described by Mitchell are this: a “sketchy” guy called out to her from a parking lot from 30 feet away and she told him to buzz off and not approach her. She seems to have done so very forcefully, again to what many deem an unnecessary degree.
Before analyzing this incident in depth, a few thoughts. First, the fact she was “approached” from 30 feet away is considered an important element of the story, but it should be taken with a grain of salt - humans are notoriously poor at judging distances and even Mitchell concedes she may have misjudged the distance. It’s possible the approaching individual was closer or further away, meaning, with respect to judging the appropriateness of her actions, it’s something of an irrelevant factor. Depending on circumstances, 30 feet could constitute a danger zone, or it could be a safe distance. In either case, we’re clearly not debating whether the potential threat was within arm’s length or half a football field away.
Second, she appears to have filmed the initial video shortly after said incident occurred and confesses to doing so (she’s visibly shaking). One of the worst aspects of social media is that is incentivizes instantly sharing and uploading your thoughts to the world, to the point of imprudently doing so. Mitchell would’ve been better served waiting until after she’d calmed down, had time to think about what she wanted to say, and had a chance to put events into perspective. She probably wouldn’t have needed to further contextualize things and would’ve likely needed to do less explaining. When adrenaline is coursing through your bloodstream and emotions are running high, the less you say, the better.
Finally, I don’t think she was wrong to feel the way she did. In keeping with the theme of this blog, we are all responsible for our own safety. Whether her description of the guy as “sketchy” was accurate or not, no matter how far he actually was, a stranger approaching you in the parking lot ought to heighten your senses immediately. Even if he was 30 feet away, the idea is to make sure a potential problem doesn’t get close enough to do damage. There aren’t many ways to do that aside from telling them to stay back. Also, her reaction might’ve been the result of her being genuinely startled. I’ve had my moments where someone, even someone I know, walked up on me and I didn’t appreciate them doing so. As such, I can’t blame her too much for reacting as she did, even though, again, immediately recording a video of her thoughts was not a good idea.
Which brings us back to the question posed at the outset: were her actions reasonable, or overboard? In times like these, I turn to my favorite personal safety commentator - Marc “Animal” MacYoung - who had a great take on the debate. It’s not really his take - he quotes someone else - but great minds think alike.
Here’s what he posted on his Facebook page [bold mine]:
OK, so this blow up has gone viral both ways: Online and in the mainstream media. (To the extent that the New York Post counts as mainstream....)
Danielle Mitchell, early last week, posted this TikTok video about how a man approached her (only her young child was with her) in a parking lot. When he was 30 feet away (her estimate), he said "excuse me, miss".
At which point she -- by her admission, not knowing what he wanted -- turned around and went off on him. She yelled at him to not approach women in a parking lot. And kept yelling at him even though he stopped immediately and even after he walked away.
In her video, she says that men should never approach women in a parking lot. Finally, she urges women in the same situation to use the "strongest voice" they possibly can. And above all: "Don't be polite" -- because "they need to literally screw off".
In her followup video (link in the comments), she adds that the parking lot was otherwise deserted (even if correct, I don't see how that changes anything), and that the man was the "sketchiest-looking" guy she ever saw (though she didn't elaborate). She emphasized that she didn't want him getting anywhere near her.
Bottom line: Right on the potential problem. Way wrong on the solution.
I've been approached by sketchy characters in parking lots, as recently as a week ago. Some guys approach people to sell them things. Others to panhandle. Still others to ask directions. And some to rob, beat, carjack, rape, etc. A victim's own car is a good place to keep him -- or her -- right where a criminal wants them.
And I've told them to stay back. In a firm and loud voice. They've all left (at least one after calling me a "psycho").
What I did not do was:
* Reprimand them personally or try to give them life tips.
* Keep yelling at them after they left.
Both of the above behaviors are:
* Gratuitously rude,
* Provocative. As in, even someone who wasn't thinking about attacking you might, after you do these things, get so pissed off at you they decide to attack you after all -- *only because you were so gratuitously rude to them*.
* Predator bait. Someone who *was* thinking about attacking you...knows that yelling at them means you're all bark and no bite. That you're not in fact ready to defend yourself. A green light to attack.
That "strongest possible voice" she referred to? That's the worst of both worlds: Strong enough to possibly provoke someone who wasn't going to attack you, not strong enough to deter someone who was.
Instead, best to say "Hey, that's close enough. What can I do for you?" in a firm voice. Maybe hold your hand out firmly in front of you. But don't personally attack him/her.
And if s/he keeps coming: "I SAID, STAY BACK!" while getting ready to defend yourself and call for help (or maybe flee). Once you've set a boundary and the other person crosses it, that's a danger signal (and one you can explain to others after the fact).
Oh yes, one last thing: A good clue that someone is up to no good is they keep approaching you *while staying quiet*, especially if your back is turned (as hers was in this case). Because from 30 feet away they can't hurt you or limit your options yet (even if you have a gun you want to get much closer, especially if you want to beat, rob, or rape the person anyway). They want to get much closer to you before you see them coming.
If someone announces himself "Excuse me?" from that far away --especially if you didn't see them before -- they're probably not a criminal.
Assertive vs. Aggressive. The difference can save your life. Not to mention can help you get along with your fellow humans.
In other words, this woman went from zero to sixty in an instant. There are times you need to shift gears quickly, but I’m not sure this was one of those instances. Just as it’s inadvisable to employ force against another person in the absence of a clear and obvious threat to your life and well-being, taking a verbally aggressive stance towards another person in the absence of a clear and obvious threat to your life is also a bad idea. Triggering strong emotions in others is a sure-fire means of escalating a situation and your top priority in any situation is to make it possible for things to cool off.
But wait a minute - if a person’s up to no good, what difference does it make to allow things to cool off? Better yet, why would a supposedly well-meaning person escalate the situation?
Here’s the thing - when you introduce strong emotions into a situation, such as anger and sadness (but especially anger), you trigger people’s fight-or-flight responses whether you know it or not. In the past, I quoted MacYoung as having said that most violence, short of outright criminality, is the result of out-of-control emotions. Once that fight-or-flight response is triggered, not many people have the ability to manage those impulses, leading them to start doing and saying things they wouldn’t had they a cooler head (like filming a TikTok video right after a heated incident).
Certainly, you’re not long for this world if you have trouble keeping your emotions in check. From a personal safety perspective, however, one should never place your bets on someone else keeping cool in a tense situation. Being responsible for your personal safety means you don’t expect the other side to de-escalate, just as you wouldn’t entrust them with your physical well-being. Instead, you need to be willing de-escalate first, because your actions are, at the end the day, the only thing you have control of.
The biggest problem I saw with Danielle Mitchell’s actions was the “all bark, no bite” aspect of it. If the guy was truly a threat and did attempt to attack her, would she have been able to defend herself? This is a troubling part of the story Mitchell doesn’t seem to have an answer for. The fact the stranger walked away tells me whatever threat he posed was ultimately minimal, but a truly dangerous person may not have cared how loudly she screamed at him. If anything, her reprimands and warnings may end up construed as challenges and some predators cannot resist a challenge. Likewise, the predator may feel it was his bluff that was called and now has to follow through. Humans are motivated as much by status as they are by material gain and criminals are no different. Nobody wants to be cowed by their would-be victims.
The trick is to avoid a potential threat from getting physically closer, while also not doing anything to further draw their attention and ire. If a stranger is walking away from you, let them walk away. There’s no upside to continuing to holler at them, giving them a reason to stay and remain engaged in the situation. It’s no different from ceasing your attack once the threat has been stopped. Anything more than what’s necessary to address the immediate problem and you’re courting trouble.
Some may point out that personal safety for a woman, particularly a mother and her child, is different than it might be for a man. That’s true, but irrelevant, in this situation. Responding in an overly aggressive manner, lecturing someone on proper social norms, none of it affords any personal safety advantages for women nor men. Again, predators tend to view such call-outs as challenges. Why would they let a small White woman dictate to them what they’re allowed to do, especially in today’s culture? Even someone who isn’t a predator, but still has a big ego and inflated sense of self, may feel their pride wounded, take Mitchell’s admonishments as personal slights, and re-engage, causing an even bigger problem than existed previously.
There are many layers to this incident, which makes it such a hot topic for discussion. At heart, it’s a personal safety matter, but there’s also the aforementioned social media angle, plus the matter of how far someone can reasonably go to establish and reinforce social norms. Certainly, personal boundaries should always be respected. As the saying goes, “good fences make good neighbors.” Safety and social tranquility cannot exist otherwise. But much of this is dictated by broader social norms. Telling someone not to approach women in public might make sense in a more puritanical society, but in a place like America, is a bit much. The issue isn’t that Danielle Mitchell was wrong to establish a boundary - she most certainly should - but that she tried doing so by imposing her personal norms on others.
Look, I’d love to live in a society with stronger social norms that we can enforce individually without violating someone’s civil rights and causing a moral panic in the process. But we don’t live in that society and it’s questionable the extent to which any “norms” exist in our society. Even so, telling someone to never approach women in public is the kind of thing you’d hear in a society that oppresses, not liberates, women. Context taken into consideration, going as far as to lecture a stranger on what you think our social norms ought to be is no longer a matter of personal safety. You need to be able to differentiate between the two. Your right to life and well-being is in no way a carte blanche to behave however you want. Unfortunately, far too many don’t understand this and, henceforth, get themselves into unnecessary and avoidable trouble.
Anyway, I don’t want to be too hard on Danielle Mitchell. Her and her child’s safety are her responsibility and, if she was genuinely startled, I can’t blame her too badly for reacting adversely. But it can also be true she went too far trying to teach the stranger a lesson in the process. Personal safety is about our well-being, not settling scores or imposing our personal standards of behavior on others. As with all things, if an opportunity exists for both sides to walk away without the situation escalating, that’s a win everyone should be willing to take. The point of diminishing returns in human interactions, particularly between strangers, comes far sooner than you think.
What are your thoughts? Were Danielle Mitchell’s reactions reasonable? How about you women? Do you relate with what Mitchell said and did, given the circumstances? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
I have a somewhat hard time understanding the situation. Was she sure that he didn’t have a car nearby? Was it a dangerous area? If so, why was she there?
I can think of a few legitimate reasons a man might call out to a woman in a parking lot. She might have dropped her wallet, or her child dropped a water bottle. Or maybe he thought she was a former classmate and he wanted to say hi.
So no, while she had a right to be wary, I don’t think she was reasonable to scream at him or berate him.
I would note that generally a man should be respectful that women are smaller and may feel threatened. Sometimes I have walked behind a woman on a dark street, realized she seemed nervous, and slowed down or moved to the other side. But sometimes there will be misunderstandings and you shouldn’t berate strangers for innocent mistakes.
Finally, I agree the cardinal rule of urban survival is to avoid dangerous situations, walk away, deflect and use the minimum intervention required when you are alarmed. And never try to “win” an interaction with a stranger. There is just no point in it.