Seat and Pole Hogs

We live in a society where seats on the T are so few and so coveted. Every day, we spend our weary commutes in constant search for the next place to rest our tired bones. So many people, so few seats. That's the bottom line. So why is it, then, that there still exists a breed of greedy people in Boston I have dubbed...The Seat and Pole Hogs.

Seat and Pole Hogs exist in the lowest rung of the ethical ladder. They are the people that exhibit more greed than Dick Cheney at an OPEC conference. They feed off the pain of others. They sip from the chalice of evil and savor every minute of it.

So what do these vile Seat and Pole Hogs do that would warrant my scorn?

First, I'll start with the Seat Hogs. They operate in a few different ways. One way is that they'll get on a T at the beginning of its route; for example: government center, lechmere, or conversely cleveland circle, boston college, etc. Basically they'll get on the T when it's empty, take one of the two seats at a "two-seater" and then put they're backpack/suitcase/shopping bag on the adjacent seat. Depending on far they're traveling on that line, they are barring other passengers from sitting down in that potentially empty seat. They're making a human being suffer just so they're H&M bag is comfy.

The second Seat Hog tactic occurs when the T is crowded. Everyone is standing up. A seat opens up, but then the person sitting next to the newly available seat immediately puts his belongings down to claim the empty seat. Same principle: does your backpack deserve the seat more than Grandpa O'Malley? I don't think so.

Observe figure A to the right: the green squares represent seats, the black dots represent normal, thoughtful passengers. The red dot is a Seat Hog! See, he has the gaul to put his nice little blue backpack next to him, preventing that nice young woman from getting a seat (Angry Standing Passenger).

The third way of Seat-Hogdom is slightly more subtle, more stealthy. Rather than putting a bag or possession in the adjacent seat, this person will spread his legs really wide apart so both of his knees encroach on the seats next to him. By doing this, any potential sitters feel awkward to sit down because they'd inevitably have to touch Mr. LegSpreader. Or, the person sitting will even be so bold to put one of their feet up on the adjacent seat and block it entirely! This isn't your buddy's rumpus room. You can't just "claim" seats by putting your poo-covered boot onto it.

There have been many times that my commute has been ruined by Seat Hogs. So what could be worse than the Seat Hog? The Pole Hog.

You usually witness the Pole Hog on those crowded early morning rushes on an inbound train. All the seats are taken. In fact, every inch of the train is taken. Those poor souls standing are forced to reach out for a pole like a 1920's New York newsboy reaching out at the bread-line for a scrap of sustenance. It's bad enough that you have to stand for 40 minutes straight on a crowded train at 8 in the morning. It's even worse when there's some douche who's hogging the entire pole.

The Pole Hog will often be some corporate clown who feels that he must read a newspaper on the ride to work. Since he'll need both hands free to read said paper, he'll lean his entire peacoat-adorned-back onto the whole length of the pole. By doing so, he blocks anyone else from grabbing it.

Why do people feel the need to prevent people from sitting next to them? Are people really that afraid of human contact? Are they that oblivious to how much it makes them look like an asshole?

Public Transportation and the Male Ego

I'm a guy. A pretty standard young male with all the pratfalls that are inherent in such a description: the messy apartment, living on 99 cent cans of generic brand beans, and not showering for days at a time. Well, maybe that one's just me.

My point is that I'm just as much your typical male as the next guy on the street. When it comes to public transportation habits, though, I'm vastly different.

For months now I've been noticing an odd habit shared amongst most males that ride on the green line. No it's not that guy who shrieks like a parrot every once and a while and it's not the habitual earwax spelunking that is undertaken. And no I'm also not talking about drunken meatheads going to Kenmore/Harvard Ave bars every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night; they've been around since the discovery of fire.

No, fellow riders, what I've been noticing is an exercise of the male ego.

I'm sure you've all noticed it before, or might perhaps be one yourself: an "unwilling seat-taker". Even I have fallen pray to the Dionysian lure of this habit. What does an unwilling seat-taker do, you might be asking? Well the answer is simple: he is unwilling to take a goddamn seat.

Sometimes, when a train is crowded and few seats open up it is understandable that a chivalrous man would prefer to surrender his comfort to a female, a child, or an elderly person. That's understandable and respectable. The unwilling seat-taker is the guy who refuses to take a seat even when the train yields ample seating for everyone. He will continue to stand uncomfortably even though he could sit down without compromising his gentlemanhood.

I've tried to analyze why some guys do this. I know its not that they prefer standing; after all, who prefers standing to sitting? No one. Its not for the exercise, because I probably burn just as many calories trying to comprehend how the Metro's writers have jobs.

I can only surmise that its for this reason: they think it makes them look weak and/or not a gentleman if they would rather sit than stand. It's the male ego coming into play again. In response to one of my posts earlier about "Chivalry on the T", one outraged reader commented that "I obviously wasn't raised corectly." I wondered why someone would be so angered by my post that they would make a personal attack on me. But I came to this conclusion:

Some males are so conditioned to surrender their own needs, wants, and desires to assist those that they feel are "weaker" or "less fortunate" than themselves that they are blind to the fact that sometimes they aren't helping anyone by being so chivalrous. Chivalry is a term implying the male's moral need to assist and be kind to a female because they are the "stronger" sex. It's a term that grew out of the middle-age's romanticized history and should not apply to our modern world where females are equal shareholders in the social stratum.

Men should act out of kindness and politeness; the earnest desire to help the people around them. They shouldn't act out of some macho preconceived notion that a man should never allow himself to sit even when there are plent of seats available. Common sense dictates that if there are 100 seats and 20 people, all 20 of those people could and should sit.

So I implore you, my fellow XY chromosomed compadres: take a seat. Make the world a happier place.