The now-viral YouTube video "10 hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" has attracted more than 27 million views, sparked conversations about street harassment, inspired a parody, and provoked controversy about depictions of race all in less than the span of a week.
Another consequence: Actress Shoshana B. Roberts, the woman at the center of the video, has received violent threats.
"I do not feel safe right now," she tells NPR's Arun Rath.
"I'm alerting the police as to which jurisdiction I'm in, so my local precinct knows," says Roberts. "So hopefully it can be prevented if somebody does attempt something."
But Roberts says she doesn't regret participating in the project, a PSA for the non-profit anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, because it has raised the issue with a wide audience.
Initially, Roberts says she found out about the project from an ad on Craigslist posted by the video's director, Rob Bliss, looking for an actress for the project. Roberts says she frequently encounters street harassment and catcalls, and she has personally experienced sexual assault. She was fed up, Roberts says, and the ad struck a chord.
"I saw these key words — 'raising awareness,' 'street harassment,' 'we have to do something about it' — and I felt the need to step in," she says.
"And I was like, 'I can keep my composure. I can do this,' " she says. " 'I have acting training. I have martial arts experience since I was 9. Should I go for the kneecaps or the sternum if anybody tries anything beyond?' Because it escalates so quickly."
So if you wanted to help tap that down, other the prudent use of a flamethrower, what could you do?
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
Yeah... this is about all I got as well. I mean, maybe not the eyes down part, cause lookin' aint a crime (as long as you're not staring/leering)
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
.
Yep, thats the reason for this thread. If you're a Dad, how do you help stop it? If you're a woman? (if you're both, that threads down the hall and to the left).
I never notice cities in Texas like that, but I could be wrong. Of course, almost no one walks downtown in Houston or Dallas.
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
Yeah... this is about all I got as well. I mean, maybe not the eyes down part, cause lookin' aint a crime (as long as you're not staring/leering)
I think Ouze meant that if the woman is walking with purpose and looking down, you should leave her alone. Not that you should look down.
Yep, thats the reason for this thread. If you're a Dad, how do you help stop it? If you're a woman? (if you're both, that threads down the hall and to the left).
I never notice cities in Texas like that, but I could be wrong. Of course, almost no one walks downtown in Houston or Dallas.
As a dad myself, I guess the only thing you really can do is train your spawn to not do gak like that, and "stop" the issue before it even starts?
You can't change others, only yourself. Best to avoid the situation, if possible, but if not...ignore it? Get thicker skin? I imagine guys like that are looking for a response, either from the woman or from their own pack of mouth breathers. Physical assailing is another kettle of fish, however. That's where tasers and pepper spray come in.
Ashiraya wrote: I think Ouze meant that if the woman is walking with purpose and looking down, you should leave her alone. Not that you should look down.
Apparently 'avoiding it' means not leaving the house. Grow thicker skin? Going to the shops shouldn't involve enduring a barrage of comments and catcalls from pick up artists. I'm surprised she gets this many comments, clearly a rage number of men raised without any manners.
1.) When a woman is walking down the street, just leave her alone if she doesn't obviously want to talk to you. Eyes down, walking with purpose? Just leave her alone.
2.) If you are with a friend who catcalls, maybe tell him not to be a jerk?
That's all I got.
That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
Yeah... this is about all I got as well. I mean, maybe not the eyes down part, cause lookin' aint a crime (as long as you're not staring/leering)
I think Ouze meant that if the woman is walking with purpose and looking down, you should leave her alone. Not that you should look down.
It would be a pretty boring world if you weren't able to go and talk to women. How else would they know that I have a winning personality as well as an arse to die for? Oh yeah I see them undressing me with their eyes but it's their bloody hands I want them to use!
Yep, thats the reason for this thread. If you're a Dad, how do you help stop it? If you're a woman? (if you're both, that threads down the hall and to the left).
I never notice cities in Texas like that, but I could be wrong. Of course, almost no one walks downtown in Houston or Dallas.
As a dad myself, I guess the only thing you really can do is train your spawn to not do gak like that, and "stop" the issue before it even starts?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently 'avoiding it' means not leaving the house. Grow thicker skin? Going to the shops shouldn't involve enduring a barrage of comments and catcalls from pick up artists. I'm surprised she gets this many comments, clearly a rage number of men raised without any manners.
Well its NYK
Id figure it would be at the least flattering if not just creepy. so long as it doesn't get physical.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently 'avoiding it' means not leaving the house. Grow thicker skin? Going to the shops shouldn't involve enduring a barrage of comments and catcalls from pick up artists. I'm surprised she gets this many comments, clearly a rage number of men raised without any manners.
I agree, but any legal recourse I can imagine being implemented would be hard to enforce and fraught with unintended consequences. What's left? Avoid, ignore or engage. Engaging is the opposite of what I suppose these women want and further (likely)impractical. I can only muster a pay them no mind response, or yeah...take another route.
I was kind of two thoughts about the video. For example, just after I watched the video my thought was. "Well, half those guys were just saying hello."
Then I thought about it a moment. "half those guys were just saying hello." - That's when the penny dropped. Half, a 50/50 chance, heads creepy comment, tails person says hello.
I certainly wouldn't want to have to deal with that in my life.
This was a CNN discussion on it.
It kind of proves the point the 'hollaback' group are making.
Just about the only halfway sensible point the guy makes during the video, that I kind of agree with is that there is a cultural element to it.
Certainly, in an English town, that wouldn't be happening I think, I've certainly never heard anything like that on the high street in the daytime where I am. You might hear some builders/brickies and the like trying it, however I think the tide is turning against that now with various initiatives. - Making a catcall isn't being worth losing your job over, for example. I may be talking complete rubbish on that though (or in general, to be honest.)
Scotland, is different. Though I haven't exactly listened out for it, I can things being very different. Small towns in Scotland have a tendency to live on a 'banter' culture so I could see some catcalls. However, I also imagine they'd be followed up from the target with a swift retort in the same vein. Scotland small town life doesn't tend to accept 'political correctness' as a whole.
The only time I've ever experienced / seen / heard things of this nature in real life though, is when the pubs close in the evenings and you have the migration of the drunkards to the clibs. Then, you will no doubt hear all manner of nastiness being bandied about, both in Scotland and England. Again, however, it does seem to be equal opportunity drunken slurs.
However, I might do an experiment the next time I'm in a town centre in Scotland and England, find a seat, read a newspaper or something and just listen. I'd really like to think otherwise but there's a good chance that I am just ignorant of it all because I'm not the target.
The now-viral YouTube video "10 hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" has attracted more than 27 million views, sparked conversations about street harassment, inspired a parody, and provoked controversy about depictions of race all in less than the span of a week.
Another consequence: Actress Shoshana B. Roberts, the woman at the center of the video, has received violent threats.
"I do not feel safe right now," she tells NPR's Arun Rath.
"I'm alerting the police as to which jurisdiction I'm in, so my local precinct knows," says Roberts. "So hopefully it can be prevented if somebody does attempt something."
But Roberts says she doesn't regret participating in the project, a PSA for the non-profit anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, because it has raised the issue with a wide audience.
Initially, Roberts says she found out about the project from an ad on Craigslist posted by the video's director, Rob Bliss, looking for an actress for the project. Roberts says she frequently encounters street harassment and catcalls, and she has personally experienced sexual assault. She was fed up, Roberts says, and the ad struck a chord.
"I saw these key words — 'raising awareness,' 'street harassment,' 'we have to do something about it' — and I felt the need to step in," she says.
"And I was like, 'I can keep my composure. I can do this,' " she says. " 'I have acting training. I have martial arts experience since I was 9. Should I go for the kneecaps or the sternum if anybody tries anything beyond?' Because it escalates so quickly."
So if you wanted to help tap that down, other the prudent use of a flamethrower, what could you do?
I would take this more serious if it didn't constitute a friendly good day as harassment...
I mean, saying to someone "you are beautiful" isnt exactly harassment... neither is "hi how are you doing" "have a good day" "how are you doing?" yet these were all included as "harassment" cat calls in the video.... thats a pretty damn low bar to label things as "harassment" especially in a society where the guy is *expected* to initiate social contact with women he wants a relationship with.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
so, say "hi" to a woman, congratulations, you are a harassing sexual predator!
If I was wearing tight pants in new york for 10 hours, I bet I would get some people saying things to me too.
10 hours, one of the most dense population centers, she obviously edited the video to cut out the boring bits, and the most exciting "cat calls" are basically "hello beautiful."
Because, a man waling in new york for ten hours, wont have anyone approach him right?
how about 3 hours?
so here is the solution:
NO ONE TALK TO ANYONE NEW! EVER!!!
... actually thats already my go to solution for NYC
I mean, saying to someone "you are beautiful" isnt exactly harassment... neither is "hi how are you doing" "have a good day" "how are you doing?" yet these were all included as "harassment" cat calls in the video.... thats a pretty damn low bar to label things as "harassment" especially in a society where the guy is *expected* to initiate social contact with women he wants a relationship with.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
so, say "hi" to a woman, congratulations, you are a harassing sexual predator!
If I was wearing tight pants in new york for 10 hours, I bet I would get some people saying things to me too.
10 hours, one of the most dense population centers, she obviously edited the video to cut out the boring bits, and the most exciting "cat calls" are basically "hello beautiful."
Because, a man waling in new york for ten hours, wont have anyone approach him right?
how about 3 hours?
so here is the solution:
NO ONE TALK TO ANYONE NEW! EVER!!!
... actually thats already my go to solution for NYC
Actually the one walking beside her is the one I would have gotten aggressive with. That looked like a setup to a mugging.
or it could be two people heading the same way for 2 minutes...
stranger things have happened....
It looked like someone was walking beside her, in no way did it look like a mugging... by that rational, can a man get "aggressive" with a woman for walking beside him for two minutes?
easysauce wrote: or it could be two people heading the same way for 2 minutes...
stranger things have happened....
It looked like someone was walking beside her, in no way did it look like a mugging... by that rational, can a man get "aggressive" with a woman for walking beside him for two minutes?
You've clearly never met my wife. She's...from Chicago.
"flaming redheads are house crazy, but it takes a special kind of crazy to voluntarily join the flaming redhead brigade."
-Frazzled, commenting on his wife, shortly before his sudden disappearance.
As a parent I would say that we have to fight it through educating our kids that certain behavior isn't ok and that we have to be sure we're setting the right example ourselves. I also think we have to not be afraid or apathetic about calling people out if they're doing something wrong. A private comment to people remarking on the attractiveness of somebody you see is one thing but if I ever saw a friend or coworker of mine say something rude or lewd to somebody I wouldn't hesitate to tell them that they were out of line and I'd want my kids to do the same. If we want to have standards for civil behavior then we all need to do our part to let people know when they're being jerks.
I agree that you shouldn't confront rude strangers. I don't think you'd win the argument so it would be a waste of time and it's not worth the risk of things escalating.
I also think it's important to bear in mind that we can only control our own actions, how we do things not how others view them. Trying to strike up a conversation with a stranger isn't de facto harassment. If I try to start a conversation with a stranger in a polite and civil manner it could still be viewed by that stranger as an unwanted annoyance but that's very different from a crude comment.
editted to add:
If you or somebody you knew is being harassed by workmen or employees of a specific jobsite/store/whatever I would recommend contacting the management of the business being built or operating. Businesses are even more image conscious in these days of social media and nobody wants to get bad PR or lose sales because of rude workers and the offending people will listen to the people who sign their checks much more so than the strangers they're leering at.
easysauce wrote: or it could be two people heading the same way for 2 minutes...
stranger things have happened....
It looked like someone was walking beside her, in no way did it look like a mugging... by that rational, can a man get "aggressive" with a woman for walking beside him for two minutes?
You've clearly never met my wife. She's...from Chicago.
"flaming redheads are house crazy, but it takes a special kind of crazy to voluntarily join the flaming redhead brigade."
-Frazzled, commenting on his wife, shortly before his sudden disappearance.
lol... I had the chain maille on for Halloween and the GF made quite the show of smacking me around, showing people how her elbows could still hurt me through it, and making jokes about it not protecting me when I got home.
I love that woman!
In general, treat everyone with respect, and stand up for others, pass that on to the kids and you are good.
Saying "hi you are beautiful" isnt disrespectful in itself, even if its not asked for.... we have to draw the line at a point where we are not penalizing every male who ever says "hi" to a girl, and its already at the point where men have almost no legal recourse for the most part in terms of abuse, rape, harassment, and domestic violence where they are the victims, while at the same time, they are almost always guilty until proven innocent when being accused of perpetrating such acts.
I mean, saying to someone "you are beautiful" isnt exactly harassment... neither is "hi how are you doing" "have a good day" "how are you doing?" yet these were all included as "harassment" cat calls in the video.... thats a pretty damn low bar to label things as "harassment" especially in a society where the guy is *expected* to initiate social contact with women he wants a relationship with.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
so, say "hi" to a woman, congratulations, you are a harassing sexual predator!
If I was wearing tight pants in new york for 10 hours, I bet I would get some people saying things to me too.
10 hours, one of the most dense population centers, she obviously edited the video to cut out the boring bits, and the most exciting "cat calls" are basically "hello beautiful."
Because, a man waling in new york for ten hours, wont have anyone approach him right?
how about 3 hours?
so here is the solution:
NO ONE TALK TO ANYONE NEW! EVER!!!
... actually thats already my go to solution for NYC
Actually the one walking beside her is the one I would have gotten aggressive with. That looked like a setup to a mugging.
The now-viral YouTube video "10 hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" has attracted more than 27 million views, sparked conversations about street harassment, inspired a parody, and provoked controversy about depictions of race all in less than the span of a week.
Another consequence: Actress Shoshana B. Roberts, the woman at the center of the video, has received violent threats.
"I do not feel safe right now," she tells NPR's Arun Rath.
"I'm alerting the police as to which jurisdiction I'm in, so my local precinct knows," says Roberts. "So hopefully it can be prevented if somebody does attempt something."
But Roberts says she doesn't regret participating in the project, a PSA for the non-profit anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, because it has raised the issue with a wide audience.
Initially, Roberts says she found out about the project from an ad on Craigslist posted by the video's director, Rob Bliss, looking for an actress for the project. Roberts says she frequently encounters street harassment and catcalls, and she has personally experienced sexual assault. She was fed up, Roberts says, and the ad struck a chord.
"I saw these key words — 'raising awareness,' 'street harassment,' 'we have to do something about it' — and I felt the need to step in," she says.
"And I was like, 'I can keep my composure. I can do this,' " she says. " 'I have acting training. I have martial arts experience since I was 9. Should I go for the kneecaps or the sternum if anybody tries anything beyond?' Because it escalates so quickly."
So if you wanted to help tap that down, other the prudent use of a flamethrower, what could you do?
I would take this more serious if it didn't constitute a friendly good day as harassment...
What about all the rest of it?
Don't you think that using the one "good day" as an excuse to ignore everything else makes you look like a creepy harassment apologist and a victim blamer?
Someone wished me a good evening once, it was horrible. I don't question for a second a good number of those were "cat calls" but a lot of what was left in just serves to muddy the waters of harassment.
I take issue with telling women how they should feel about this. Some women are afraid to admit they like the attention, some women feel threatened and shamed. The problem with making this so black and white is you remove all context where it's ok to approach or communicate with strangers.
Are we going to label panhandling universally as harassment? Some of it is aggressive, some of it is passive, often cases they'll still have the audacity to address a stranger verbally without consent... the horror... the horror.
Crablezworth wrote: Someone asked me for the time today, I told them I didn't consent to being verbally communicated with and that time was a tool of the patriarchy lol
Crablezworth wrote: Someone asked me for the time today, I told them I didn't consent to being verbally communicated with and that time was a tool of the patriarchy lol
I am guessing you are not a young woman who is frequently verbally harassed in the streets by men.
To more seriously comment: My former roommate's girlfriend would get catcalls walking to and from our apartment, apparently. She dismissed them as annoying, but it didn't seem to bother her too much.
I was frankly stunned to hear that such a thing even happened still outside of some construction workers on break that even then only existed in a stereotypical picturesque moment frozen in my mind. As Amanda Palmer once said, "has any girl in history seriously responded, 'Oh sure, you seem so nice, lets get it on'?"
Crablezworth wrote: Someone asked me for the time today, I told them I didn't consent to being verbally communicated with and that time was a tool of the patriarchy lol
I am guessing you are not a young woman who is frequently verbally harassed in the streets by men.
by the videos definition of verbal harassment, he is in fact the victim of verbal harassment by a man every time some one talks to him without permission.
Did you miss the video where a guy walks into the street, and gets just as much "harassment" as the girl, but in 3 hours.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
She clearly was walking past him in the video and he greeted her and then sped up to stay alongside and stay close. It's just weird, he was too close on a mostly empty pavement. I only walk that close to someone I'm actually walking with, he wasn't walking the same way by happenstance. There's no point in being coy, he's clearly a creep and it would spook a lot of women to have someone do that if they were on their own because of the risk of assault and robbery.
daedalus wrote: To more seriously comment: My former roommate's girlfriend would get catcalls walking to and from our apartment, apparently. She dismissed them as annoying, but it didn't seem to bother her too much.
I was frankly stunned to hear that such a thing even happened still outside of some construction workers on break that even then only existed in a stereotypical picturesque moment frozen in my mind. As Amanda Palmer once said, "has any girl in history seriously responded, 'Oh sure, you seem so nice, lets get it on'?"
Lots of girls do respond to "hi you are beautiful" or "hi how are you", some even respond to less sophisticated conversation starters, like whistling or dry humping in clubs.
If saying "Hi how are you" or otherwise telling a strange girl she is beautiful is "harassment" then i got every single girlfriend i ever had with it...
daedalus wrote: To more seriously comment: My former roommate's girlfriend would get catcalls walking to and from our apartment, apparently. She dismissed them as annoying, but it didn't seem to bother her too much.
I was frankly stunned to hear that such a thing even happened still outside of some construction workers on break that even then only existed in a stereotypical picturesque moment frozen in my mind. As Amanda Palmer once said, "has any girl in history seriously responded, 'Oh sure, you seem so nice, lets get it on'?"
Lots of girls do respond to "hi you are beautiful" or "hi how are you", some even respond to less sophisticated conversation starters, like whistling or dry humping in clubs.
If saying "Hi how are you" or otherwise telling a strange girl she is beautiful is "harassment" then i got every single girlfriend i ever had with it...
Did you do that while they were busy walking down the street?
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
She clearly was walking past him in the video and he greeted her and then sped up to stay alongside and stay close. It's just weird, he was too close on a mostly empty pavement. I only walk that close to someone I'm actually walking with, he wasn't walking the same way by happenstance. There's no point in being coy, he's clearly a creep and it would spook a lot of women to have someone do that if they were on their own because of the risk of assault and robbery.
yes we should arrest all people for being creepy and doing things you wouldnt do...
same could be said for wargamers/MTG ect "omg how dare that creepy smelly guy come up to me and dare to talk to me then walk within a foot of me"
Did you do that while they were busy walking down the street?
Yes.... i hate meeting ladies in clubs or bars, not so bad now that smokings is banned,
so heaven forbid i actually talk to a woman while walking, at the shopping mart, whatever...
Walk up to a lady, smile say hello, and you would be surprised how often they stop to talk.
the difference is not in my approach, yet i have plenty of ladies who dont mind at all. some might even have been *gasp* happy to have met me
now some are acting like it should be illegal to walk up to a pretty girl at the market and say hi, you are pretty, wanna grab a coffee or something?
Lena Dunham mentioned liking cat calls and received some flack for it. And that's really the problem for me, it's not so cut and dry. While I do think a lot of cat calling is likely crass, there is a difference between saying (paraphrasing a bit) "nice breasts want to engage in sexual activities!?" and "have a good evening".
It's difficult to reconcile "sex positive" feminist ideals and, well, whatever the opposite of that is. I mean, is there any context left where it's ok to be a bit honest about intentions? Is getting similar attentions from either sex going in either direction not at least more acceptable in a bar or nightclub?
I've wished people of both sexes "good evening/morning", often out of anxiety, just sort of awkwardly blurted out as I accidentally make eye contact, is it fair to 100% time infer from that action that I have a sexual motive? Is all street level communication a tool of the patriarchy? Incidently I've had people of both sexes, perfect strangers encourage me to smile, I'm pretty sure the nice lady at the grocery store just wanted to brighten my day, I really should have told her it was rude to communicate with strangers any context.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
She clearly was walking past him in the video and he greeted her and then sped up to stay alongside and stay close. It's just weird, he was too close on a mostly empty pavement. I only walk that close to someone I'm actually walking with, he wasn't walking the same way by happenstance. There's no point in being coy, he's clearly a creep and it would spook a lot of women to have someone do that if they were on their own because of the risk of assault and robbery.
yes we should arrest all people for being creepy and doing things you wouldnt do...
same could be said for wargamers/MTG ect "omg how dare that creepy smelly guy come up to me and dare to talk to me then walk within a foot of me"
Don't pack this thread with straw men. No one said that they should be arrested. The point is that pursuing women on the street, cat calling and getting into their personal space makes them feel harassed and is downright rude or scary, depending on the circumstances. The men should cut it out.
To complicate things further, I live in an area where its actually a bit rude not to pass a little greeting, nod, or smile to people when they walk by, and telling someone they look nice is still a welcome compliment.
(Not cat calling, mind you...I hope I'm understood here).
This really seems like an issue about how the people were raised. If you were raised to respect others or treat them as you'd want to be treated, then it shouldn't happen.
xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote: This really seems like an issue about how the people were raised. If you were raised to respect others or treat them as you'd want to be treated, then it shouldn't happen.
I agree, but can we take not just the people but the place into account? Is it fair to say that in lower income areas, hanging out on the stoop or the corner is more common and as such you've got a larger population of individuals who aren't commuting in either direction but hanging out in the open air in front of their home or at the corner. If she had shot 10 hours of walking through suburban neighborhoods, are we assuming there's no catcalls because wealthy people are better or because, you know, the front porch is like 30 feet from the sidewalk and even if individuals were commenting, you'd never hear them. If you grow up in a less then affluent neighborhood in say baltimore or chicago and "this sort of thing" is more common, is this just 100% wrong in any and all contexts or is there some room for racial/cultural sensitivity.
My other problem with this is it's not scientific, you can edit 10 hours of footage to support quite a few narratives.
Here's a thought experiment for ya, 10 hours of walking and we didn't see any homeless people ask her for money, imagine the implications of including that. While certainly not cat calling, just as fair to assume some could consider it a form of harassment.
Harassment is a bit loaded because it's subjective:
"Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing."
Positive intentions can still have negative outcomes. Repetition here comes from the context of the video itself, not really the same people day in day out bothering her. The guy following her was pretty messed up.
I mean, saying to someone "you are beautiful" isnt exactly harassment... neither is "hi how are you doing" "have a good day" "how are you doing?" yet these were all included as "harassment" cat calls in the video.... thats a pretty damn low bar to label things as "harassment" especially in a society where the guy is *expected* to initiate social contact with women he wants a relationship with.
Even the guy who "walked beside her *silently* for two minutes" is "harassment" apparently... because you cannot walk alongside people.
so, say "hi" to a woman, congratulations, you are a harassing sexual predator!
If I was wearing tight pants in new york for 10 hours, I bet I would get some people saying things to me too.
10 hours, one of the most dense population centers, she obviously edited the video to cut out the boring bits, and the most exciting "cat calls" are basically "hello beautiful."
Because, a man waling in new york for ten hours, wont have anyone approach him right?
how about 3 hours?
so here is the solution:
NO ONE TALK TO ANYONE NEW! EVER!!!
... actually thats already my go to solution for NYC
Actually the one walking beside her is the one I would have gotten aggressive with. That looked like a setup to a mugging.
The now-viral YouTube video "10 hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" has attracted more than 27 million views, sparked conversations about street harassment, inspired a parody, and provoked controversy about depictions of race all in less than the span of a week.
Another consequence: Actress Shoshana B. Roberts, the woman at the center of the video, has received violent threats.
"I do not feel safe right now," she tells NPR's Arun Rath.
"I'm alerting the police as to which jurisdiction I'm in, so my local precinct knows," says Roberts. "So hopefully it can be prevented if somebody does attempt something."
But Roberts says she doesn't regret participating in the project, a PSA for the non-profit anti-street harassment organization Hollaback!, because it has raised the issue with a wide audience.
Initially, Roberts says she found out about the project from an ad on Craigslist posted by the video's director, Rob Bliss, looking for an actress for the project. Roberts says she frequently encounters street harassment and catcalls, and she has personally experienced sexual assault. She was fed up, Roberts says, and the ad struck a chord.
"I saw these key words — 'raising awareness,' 'street harassment,' 'we have to do something about it' — and I felt the need to step in," she says.
"And I was like, 'I can keep my composure. I can do this,' " she says. " 'I have acting training. I have martial arts experience since I was 9. Should I go for the kneecaps or the sternum if anybody tries anything beyond?' Because it escalates so quickly."
So if you wanted to help tap that down, other the prudent use of a flamethrower, what could you do?
I would take this more serious if it didn't constitute a friendly good day as harassment...
What about all the rest of it?
Don't you think that using the one "good day" as an excuse to ignore everything else makes you look like a creepy harassment apologist and a victim blamer?
No since the implications of good day being thrown into the same category as crude advances as harassment dilutes the point of the video to nothingness, consider for one moment the implications of compliments or greetings being actual harassment and the effect it would have, let that thought sink in for a moment...
Its not that I like to ignore everything else its just that the alternative the video proposes is actually worse.
We're diluting the meaning of "harassment" to the point where it's losing its meaning completely.
Ouze wrote: That, and this being the Dakka OT, I feel pretty good about being able to predict pretty much who is going to post in this thread and what they are going to say.
Do you find that that giant chip on your shoulder ever makes it hurt?
jreilly89 wrote: Didn't this harassment video end up being a fake or a setup? Don't have it on me, but I thought the whole thing was set up to be like that.
I think throwing that out there without making any effort to source it at all is pretty weak sauce.
jreilly89 wrote: Didn't this harassment video end up being a fake or a setup? Don't have it on me, but I thought the whole thing was set up to be like that.
I haven't watched the video because I don't much care, but supposedly all white guys, except one or two, were edited out.
There is a scene in City Slickers, and I'm dating myself since that movie is likely older than some Dakkanauts, where the men are sitting around the fire when the one woman in the group heads to bed.
One of them comments "Sleep well!" or something to that effect, and others look at him. They comment on him having a wife and he quips "What? That was, 'have a quiet and restful evening'." To which his friend replies "No, that was 'I like your <butt>, can I wear it as a hat?'
Yes, there are many people in that video who are saying normally innocuous things. "Good morning", "How are you?", "Have a good evening", thing like that.
If you think for a second that they actually care about the answer, and aren't simply attempting to segue into a "let me get your phone number" conversation, I'm not sure what to say.
streamdragon wrote: There is a scene in City Slickers, and I'm dating myself since that movie is likely older than some Dakkanauts, where the men are sitting around the fire when the one woman in the group heads to bed.
One of them comments "Sleep well!" or something to that effect, and others look at him. They comment on him having a wife and he quips "What? That was, 'have a quiet and restful evening'." To which his friend replies "No, that was 'I like your <butt>, can I wear it as a hat?'
Yes, there are many people in that video who are saying normally innocuous things. "Good morning", "How are you?", "Have a good evening", thing like that.
If you think for a second that they actually care about the answer, and aren't simply attempting to segue into a "let me get your phone number" conversation, I'm not sure what to say.
I kept a count one time, just out of curiosity. About 7 out of 10 times people asked how I was doing, or some other such phrase, was a leadup to asking for a favor, loan, etc.l
So, I'm late to the thread, but here's my two cents:
I think we try way too often, especially in the United States, to stop the action instead of teaching how to cope with the action. I think this kind of 'harassment' and 'bullying' are perfect examples of this. You cannot, nor should you, legislate against people being donkey-caves. It's going to happen. And that's why we need to teach people how to deal with the situations in addition to what we already do.
You can educate people until you're blue in the face; some will take something away from it, and some won't. But you can't solely focus on those people, regardless of how gakky it can be when people are donkey-caves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Lena Dunham mentioned liking cat calls and received some flack for it.
Well of course she likes it.... It probably happens to her far less than someone that looks like Jessica Alba.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently 'avoiding it' means not leaving the house. Grow thicker skin? Going to the shops shouldn't involve enduring a barrage of comments and catcalls from pick up artists. I'm surprised she gets this many comments, clearly a rage number of men raised without any manners.
I'm surprised by the number of comments too, but for a different reason. When has catcalling EVER gotten someone laid? I really don't get why people do it in the first place.
I went to a dance club this weekend for Halloween. And the groping and dry humping was out of control. I was dancing with lots of women but I would ask them if they wanted to dance. One woman screamed at me like she was gonna use bear mace on me and I just went back to hanging out.
Apparently to her: "Do you want to dance" was "You gonna get raped"
Later in the night, when after 4 hours I had made friends with most people on the dance floor and I guess she observed I was not a murderer/rapist, she did come over and apologize to me for flipping out on me. I guess she observed me having normal respectful human interaction opposed to rubbing my junk on random girls from behind.
People in our society have 'shields up' and often for very good reasons. I am not going to stop holding doors for people and saying hello to acknowledge other humans in my general vicinity. I am sure I have 'harassed' people by these standards, but to assume every 'hello, have a nice day' is going to be a 'give me your number' I think is wrong.
But I am also an able-bodied white male who is 6'4" who lives a life of 'default' privilege so my simple act of forcing interaction on others re-enforces my power in society and tears down others ability to be seen as equals.
I think we need a more complicated system of rings for a more complicated time.
Ring finger ring still = married
Index finger ring = advances are welcome
Middle finger ring = advances are not welcome
Pinky finger ring = same sex advances welcome
(any combination thereof)
And for racists, or people attracted to only certain races, we can color code them. And for people who only like to date people of a certain religion, just plop the applicable religious symbol on the index finger ring. We can all get along, avoid harrassing people unintetntionally, and save time, if we just improve our social cues
jasper76 wrote: I think we need a more complicated system of rings for a more complicated time.
Ring finger ring still = married
Index finger ring = advances are welcome
Middle finger ring = advances are not welcome
Pinky finger ring = same sex advances welcome
(any combination thereof)
And for racists, or people attracted to only certain races, we can color code them. And for people who only like to date people of a certain religion, just plop the applicable religious symbol on the index finger ring. We can all get along, avoid harrassing people unintetntionally, and save time, if we just improve our social cues
Isn't that what candy bracelets were for? *looks at old sweeps-week news stories*
Part of the whole "why can't people even say hello" thing might be the location as well. How unusual is it for people in NYC to be outgoing and to say "how are you" and "good evening"? Here in Oklahoma you say hello to a ton of strangers, you hold the door open and say "good evening" to whoever happens to be behind you regardless of who they are. Everybody gets a "howdy" wave if you drive past them on a country road. I don't consider that harassing people since everybody is friendly to everybody. I don't know of that is the same in NYC, but if it isn't then the stuff in the video is a problem and I can see how it would qualify as cat calling.
d-usa wrote: I don't know of that is the same in NYC, but if it isn't then the stuff in the video is a problem and I can see how it would qualify as cat calling.
Porch sitting, i.e., sitting on a front porch or stoop, usually of a private residence is a leisure activity which can be a direct or indirect form of social interaction. This activity is a staple of most urban areas in the United States, and helps contribute to a lively atmosphere, for those sitting and also those passing by. As well as being a good way to connect with neighbors, it also is an important form of community security, helping to prevent crime.
Often you know a lot of the people as you see them regularly, but I could see a stranger not knowing the people could see it as threatening or harassment. I would say it is more of a 'you in my neighborhood, we see you' than 'I want to get your number and have sex with you.' I am going to say it probably is common in NYC to porch sit the way we do in other major US cities.
Some of those I think were just people porch sitting and they were probably saying all sorts of things to everyone who passed by. While I know 'Porch sitting' Can be harassment, especially of sexual nature... not all 'Hey, how you doing!' from porch sitters is an attempt to dis-empower women or 'get into their pants'. If you have no idea what porch sitting is, then I can see why people might feel harassed... I like talking to porch sitters when I walk in the city.
I do think there is a bit of 'scary minorities talking to virtuous white woman' which makes even the basic social introduction perceived as a threat. I am willing to take a lot of those 'call outs' on face value as it does seem like classic american porch sitting to me or simple polite social introductions, but of course, I don't have a woman's perspective on it.
@d-USA: That's how it is where I live too. Honestly, stuff like this makes me really glad I don't live in an area where people distrust others or find them to be potential creepos by default.
d-usa wrote: How unusual is it for people in NYC to be outgoing and to say "how are you" and "good evening"?
As someone who lived in the Bronx for 25 years, at least some of which was working in Manhattan, I assure you that people in NYC do not just say hello to strangers normally. In fact, it's one of the first things that freaked me out when I came to Iowa. My sister had a similar reaction when she went to Oklahoma.
In the UK I've never known strangers greet each other where it is busy, so I almost never see it in the city. Usually, strangers only greet each other with a 'good morning' if it is quiet and there's no one else around, which is why you're quite likely to get it passing someone walking in the countryside or on an early Sunday morning walking to the local shop.
LOL imagine how I must frighten all the ladies and gentlemen around here.... saying hi and talking to them, shame on me!
I have a GF, have no intention to ask out anyone else, though to be frank, im not sure how you get to meet anyone new without saying "hi" to a stranger, which is apparently harassment according to some. And yes, this is saying "hi" with the *GASP* intention of getting to know that person and developing a relation ship, which might even include *GASP* consensual sex!
yet I smile, often say hello, hold open doors for *people* (ladies and men)....
I dont think I want to live in a world where saying "hi" is harassment.
this story seems to further justify my belief that new york city is the galaxies center of scum and villainy...
Yeah, I don't really see anything like this in the city, but then, I'm a dude. 'It's different for girls', to quote Joe Jackson. It happens to my missus, particularly with african dudes according to her - they even occasionally try to grab her wrist when she walks past. Not when I'm there obviously. They're thirsty, not suicidal.
I have noticed that they DO stare though, even when I'm with her. Like, standing in the street gawping, mouth open. It's crazy, and I must confess I am the sort of person to say 'what the feth are you staring at?' I'm not proud of it, and I expect men to look at her because she is beautiful, but staring, blatantly undressing a person with your eyes is just rude.
I think perhaps a lot of men on here (and in general) are judging this behaviour based on how THEY would feel - I'm sure if the roles were reversed, most dudes would like this level of attention.
For women, unwanted attention can be pretty scary. You gotta remember that most women are more slightly built and shorter than most men. If bigger, stronger people were giving me that sort of creepy attention, I'd be pretty freaked out. It's not all creepy, of course, but unfortunately the creeps ruin it for the rest of us decent blokes who just see a pretty girl and say 'hi', because frankly, we've sat through too many romcoms and have formed this daft idea that whirlwind romances can start from a chance meeting in the street. That said, it's worth remembering that when you say hi, however decent a guy you are, you are essentially saying 'would you please consider me as a sexual partner?'
Something to think about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: LOL imagine how I must frighten all the ladies and gentlemen around here.... saying hi and talking to them, shame on me!
Well, if you live in place where that's normal behaviour, I'm sure you wouldn't frighten anyone. It's not normal behaviour in NY, or London, or in my city, Manchester. If someone randomly said hello to me on the street here, I'd think they were a murderer or a Jehova's witness.
[quote=easysauce 621756 7330884 e38fc245cda24ddf971cefa95472e77c.pngI have a GF, have no intention to ask out anyone else, though to be frank, im not sure how you get to meet anyone new
In big cities you don't want to meet anyone new out in the street. There is too high of a crazy:sane ratio there.
You can only meet new people in a controlled setting such as a dinner party, workplace, organized event, etc. where you can assume the crazy:sane ratio is much closer.
This whole New York thing sounds weird to me, because I ran into several friendly strangers when I was there. Whenever I smiled and said hi to a woman she'd smile and say hi back. The same went for men. I both engaged and got engaged in conversations in various places, with no hostility or weirdness at all. Nice city with even nicer people in my experience.
I never commented on anyones looks or whistled though, except those two middle aged black women
You can only meet new people in a controlled setting such as a dinner party, workplace, organized event, etc. where you can assume the crazy:sane ratio is much closer.
ummm I politely disagree with this... you most certainly can not only engage with new people at the workplace, dinner parties, or organized events with the intention of asking them out...
A: workplace hooking up is a no no
B: how do i get invited to the event full of people i do not know to meet them, if I do not know them?
that basically limits people to POF, speed dating, and bars and so on... things that have open invites that in no way dilute the "crazies" you speak of.
also, little bit sexist to assume more crazies on the male side(I doubt I could get away with calling women crazy in general, or the majority) , not to mention crazy people need love too as well!
are you going to tell me that POF and bars have a good crazy/non crazy ratio? is there some fence between the streets and bars/POF/ect that keeps the "street crazies" on the street?
I have heard plenty of women complain about being hit on in bars, at the workplace, various organized events, ect... The location a woman happens to be in is in no way an open ticket to ask them out... nor is it an obvious sign not to ask them out... the *ONLY* acceptable way to know if a women would enjoy your advances, is to *ACTUALLY ASK HER*.....
.
its *NOT THE APPROACH* its the women, what works for one women, wont work for another... what worked for one woman on monday might not work for her on tuesday... some like being approached in public, some hate it, some are ambivalent and walk past hollerers who "harass" them for a date the same way they walk by people who "harass" them for spare change/donations/ect
some women *GASP* even approach men on the street and say "hi", yet we wouldnt call that harrasment would we?
To presume that a womans location, dress, ect are an open invitation or a roadblock to talking to her in fact steals that womans agency and is sexist in that regard.
saying "you approached that women, who was on the street, her being on the street means she doesnt want to talk to you" is the same as saying "that woman was wearing a sexy dress that means she wants to talk to you"
The only fair, non sexist way to know if a woman wants to interact with you, is to communicate with her and ask.
You can only meet new people in a controlled setting such as a dinner party, workplace, organized event, etc. where you can assume the crazy:sane ratio is much closer.
ummm I politely disagree with this... you most certainly can not only engage with new people at the workplace, dinner parties, or organized events with the intention of asking them out...
A: workplace hooking up is a no no
B: how do i get invited to the event full of people i do not know to meet them, if I do not know them?
I'm just telling you how it works in the city. I'm not judging your position or approach.
I get that what is normal for new yorkers isnt normal for the rest of us,
but I highly doubt all the people clamouring about how awful the "harrassment" in this video is are all from NYC, nor would they just say this only happens in NYC.
Having a womans location determine if you can/cannot talk to her, be it in NYC stree or anywhere else's streets, disenfranchises that woman just as much as saying a womans clothing/makeup grants or denies you permission to do the same.
So can we all agree if it was indeed 10 hours of footage you could edit it to suit a lot of narratives?
Again, if I were to only leave in homeless individuals asking for money, could I not create either a story about harassment or a heartless individual who ignores the plight of the poorest among us?
I agree with you. The director could also have put together a video called "Woman walks in New York for 10 hours and the overwhelming majority of people ignore her", but that wouldn't support the point of the project, which the more I learn about, the more disingenuous I find it.
There's also something to be said about people acting like idiots for attention whenever they see a camera rolling.
If they just relase raw footage of her walking, maybe people can answer their own questions. Not the questions that the narrator asks also conveninently they answer.
streamdragon wrote: There is a scene in City Slickers, and I'm dating myself since that movie is likely older than some Dakkanauts, where the men are sitting around the fire when the one woman in the group heads to bed.
One of them comments "Sleep well!" or something to that effect, and others look at him. They comment on him having a wife and he quips "What? That was, 'have a quiet and restful evening'." To which his friend replies "No, that was 'I like your <butt>, can I wear it as a hat?'
Yes, there are many people in that video who are saying normally innocuous things. "Good morning", "How are you?", "Have a good evening", thing like that.
If you think for a second that they actually care about the answer, and aren't simply attempting to segue into a "let me get your phone number" conversation, I'm not sure what to say.
I find this funny. I mean, what's wrong with saying good morning, etc etc if you're being polite and friendly. In the end, as long as you're not forcing the people to stop and talk with you (and omg, I've had so much of that where strangers would literally just keep talking to me), it shouldn't even be considered harassment.
I had a neighbor today be overly chatty with me while I was trying to get snow tires on. Come to think of it, I never really consented to 20 minutes of inane chit chat. At the same time there's no nice way to tell someone you don't really care what they're talking about, you have to get something done. Human interaction is a minefield, who hasn't watched seinfield, honesty is almost always taken the wrong way with disastrous results. There's nothing wrong with a neighbor wanting to chat, it will always be difficult to express that you're on a schedule and can't really chat. To infer ill intent on my neighbor I'd have to be pretty neurotic, that' doesn't mean that this situation wasn't mildly annoying. Granted I know this person, it wasn't some stranger who simply sauntered up thinking to make conversation. In that situation I might have been more guarded or suspicious, but even then, if I were to outright label that behavior as harassment I think it'd be hyperbolic. There is a line between undesirable social interaction and harassment.
Who's beautiful? If you are referring to the woman in the first video , i'm not seeing it, she is bog standard plain. I mustn't be beholding enough as my eyes don't see it.
Some of the catcalling was off putting but I found most of the "hi, how are you" ect to not count as harassment, it's just guys looking for a conversation opener, at the other end of the scale the guy that walked beside her was being REALLY aggressive in a passive way. Walking right in her personal space for 5 minutes, that would have freaked anyone out.
it was cool to see the male model get harassed by a fairy though
Aesop the God Awful wrote: This whole New York thing sounds weird to me, because I ran into several friendly strangers when I was there. Whenever I smiled and said hi to a woman she'd smile and say hi back. The same went for men. I both engaged and got engaged in conversations in various places, with no hostility or weirdness at all. Nice city with even nicer people in my experience.
I never commented on anyones looks or whistled though, except those two middle aged black women
One of my favorite things to do is strike up conversations with people I meet. It's interesting some of the stories you can hear from strangers. I struck up a conversation on a plane in Boston once with an 82 year old woman who ended up becoming one of my familie's closest friends for the rest of her life. We would visit her whenever we made it back to Maine and she would stay with us when she would drive her van out west to her husband's WW2 bomber group reunions. She had a fat journal of stories from all the friends she made in her journies across the U.S. She knew people from Amish farmers in Pensylvania to the people that trained animals for the movies(the people that trained the bear for the movie ,"The Edge").
jreilly89 wrote: Didn't this harassment video end up being a fake or a setup? Don't have it on me, but I thought the whole thing was set up to be like that.
I think throwing that out there without making any effort to source it at all is pretty weak sauce.
Thats why I put a question mark in there, because I wasn't sure. Went back and looked it up, and I guess it's semi-legit, but thanks for throwing me under the bus anyways, even though I didn't make a firm statement.
If there's nothing to hide, then they CAN answer the questions. That tactic shouldn't be to stop people from throwing out questions even if those questions are there to spread FUD.
Sining wrote:I find this funny. I mean, what's wrong with saying good morning, etc etc if you're being polite and friendly. In the end, as long as you're not forcing the people to stop and talk with you (and omg, I've had so much of that where strangers would literally just keep talking to me), it shouldn't even be considered harassment.
If you honestly believe they were being "polite and friendly" in that video, I weep for people you have social interactions with. Context is everything; apparently that is difficult for some to grasp.
Sining wrote:If there's nothing to hide, then they CAN answer the questions. That tactic shouldn't be to stop people from throwing out questions even if those questions are there to spread FUD.
Sining wrote: If there's nothing to hide, then they CAN answer the questions. That tactic shouldn't be to stop people from throwing out questions even if those questions are there to spread FUD.
Is it true that your account is a sockpuppet account you started to get around a Dakka ban? I heard that somewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't agree with everything he says. but, "hi, how you doing?" is not herassment.
and bad words warning. lots of bad words.
I don't think i'd ever approach anybody on the street unless I really needed to, like for directions or something, even then I'd tend to ask a) other men, b) staff of a shop or c) beat walking Police.
I cringed inside out at the point where that guy had been following her for a good few minutes. She should have stopped and went into a shop to see if he continued off or what. *shudders*
streamdragon wrote: If you honestly believe they were being "polite and friendly" in that video, I weep for people you have social interactions with. Context is everything; apparently that is difficult for some to grasp.
that is sexist, in that it steals the womans agency.
Claiming that because a women is on the street, she is "asking" people not talk to her or politly ask her out or say hi, is sexist and steals that womans agency the same way as stating that because a woman wears make up/perfume/clothes that enhance her looks she is asking to be asked out.
context means nothing, a woman at a club in a short skirt is not
"asking for it" and a woman walking down the street is not "not asking for it", in both cases, ask the woman what she wants and comply with her stated wishes.
The only proper, factual, non harrasing way, to find out if someone wants to engage with you is to talk to them and find out.
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
by that rationale one could say "she was wearing tight pants, she was asking to be asked out, her makeup also indicates she is projecting her attractiveness and that she wants to be asked out"
you cannot have it both ways, either context is everything, or its not. You cannot claim the context of "being in a public place like the street" overides the context of "wearing things to accentuate/display/project desirability/attactiveness/sexuality"
both are meaningless, people only ask for things they *actually ask for*, people are only not asking for things they *actually are not asking for*...
both instances require *ACTUAL COMMUNICATION* as opposed to completely undefined "contexts" that contradict one another and have no factual definitions to make them constant in their appraisal.
I got stopped TWO TIMES in one block by people who wanted directions, who wouldnt take "no im not looking it up on google for you at my house" as an answer, as I was OBVIOUSLY busy looking down, walking fast, with an ever cooling hotly toasted subway sandwich congealing in the cold canadian breeze.... one of the guys looked super suspicious too, walked really fast in the opposite direction as me, then jay walked and pull a 180 to get a head of me, then stopped looked right at me and waited, blocked my path, then kept asking me where "the lawyers office" was (at 8:30pm when they are closed) despite me saying i dont know...
should I make a you tube video about being street harrassed? because this kind of thing happens every day...
I was in the "context" of the street as well... my clothes dont even project my ability to give directions at all.
streamdragon wrote: If you honestly believe they were being "polite and friendly" in that video, I weep for people you have social interactions with. Context is everything; apparently that is difficult for some to grasp.
that is sexist, in that it steals the womans agency.
Claiming that because a women is on the street, she is "asking" people not talk to her or politly ask her out or say hi, is sexist and steals that womans agency the same way as stating that because a woman wears make up/perfume/clothes that enhance her looks she is asking to be asked out.
context means nothing, a woman at a club in a short skirt is not
"asking for it" and a woman walking down the street is not "not asking for it", in both cases, ask the woman what she wants and comply with her stated wishes.
The only proper, factual, non harrasing way, to find out if someone wants to engage with you is to talk to them and find out.
Somehow you're managing to agree with me and disagree with me in a single post, using the exact same arguments. Bravo.
if the expectation is that, rather then actually *ASK* a women if she is interested, men are supposed to act based on context.
Then its only fair to bring up that the "context" is not just the womans location, its her attire/clothes/makeup/ect.
You wouldnt be ok with using her tight pants and make up as "context" allowing men to ask her out, yet you are ok with being in the street as "context" disallowing being asked out.
in this video, thats exactly what we see, men *ASKING* a woman out, they were also polite about it with one or two exceptions, all asked politly, and left her alone right after.
However, you are decrying mere act of *ASKING* a woman out as harrassment, which it is 100% not, it is in fact, the antithesis of harrassment to ask a woman if your advances are welcome.
It is infact, the *only* way to do it properly, you have to ask the womans if she is interested, her location/clothes/makeup are meaningless for determining what that woman actually wants you to do.
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
I am not seeing how my statement and your statement are in any way related.
Saying "HI!" to a person in NY is similar to here but exaggerated. A stranger says "Hi!" here and they want something-usually money in my case. They are not saying hi to be friendly. Saying "Hi!" at a party is completely acceptable. Context matters.
People can only be held responsible for their own actions not the perception of those actions by others. I live in the south, people exchange pleasantries with strangers all the time, we even say thank you when people hold the door for us. If I say Good morning! to somebody because I feel it's the polite thing to do and that person chooses to interpret it as my trying to invite them to have intercourse with me or asking them to stop and tell me their life story or whatever, that's on them, not me. We don't have to try to parse the meaning of every little pleasantry tossed out at people.
Harassment has always seemed like obscenity to me, there's a line where most everyone can agree that behavior has crossed over into harassment but up to the line it's a big grey area.
Also, NYC gets a bad rap. I grew up in the suburbs of NJ and went to NYC plenty of times. The city is always crowded and always has people form all over so most people just mind their business and go about their way but they're not overtly rude. A good chunk of the comments in the OP video are things like Good morning and Have a blessed day, and a woman would get that walking down the street in a small town too but it would be considered personable and sweet instead of crude and harassing.
Okay problems with that video.... It shows only the worst bits.
ITs propaganda.
Also the problem I find is that it skews it. If someone looks your general direction that is sometimes considered harassment. If you see an attractive women and you are straight. And you look at her. It is fine to look at her. I find these types of videos just skew the truth to show their type of thinking and not show anything that goes against their agenda.
Harassment does happen. And there are idiots that do. But there was one a few months ago that was a documentary of the same nature. (Exact same nature) where they compared looking at a woman as comparable to harassment.
Prestor Jon wrote: People can only be held responsible for their own actions not the perception of those actions by others. .
Thats a statement that contravenes many many criminal statutes, both misdemeanor and felony...
How so? I'm responsible for everything I do and say and if I violate a law I can be prosecuted. If there was a law against wishing somebody good morning and I wished somebody good morning I could be charged but there isn't and if I wish somebody good morning to be polite it's not my fault if they misinterpret it.
If you and I pass each other on the sidewalk while you're walking your dog and I say, Wow, I'd kill to have a wiener dog that awesome! and you think OMG he's going to murder me and steal my puppy! you can call the cops on me because you feel threatened and I'd have to explain myself. We all need to be cognizant of what we say and do and how we do and say it but ultimately we can only control ourselves not others. I'm not saying that people should be absolved of the consequences of their actions I'm just saying that if somebody behaves in a manner they believe is appropriate but somebody else believes it to be inappropriate then it's a matter of culture clash not malice.
The perceptions of others defines many crimes, and many speech codes.
Regardless of your intent, if you are perceived to have discriminated or created a harmful working environment you've broken the law for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you and I pass each other on the sidewalk while you're walking your dog and I say, Wow, I'd kill to have a wiener dog that awesome! and you think OMG he's going to murder me and steal my puppy!
It would be right about that time that Rodney would have snuck up behind you and BITEBITEBITEBITEBITE!!!
We don't call him "the Shanker" for nothing.
Frazzled wrote: The perceptions of others defines many crimes, and many speech codes.
Regardless of your intent, if you are perceived to have discriminated or created a harmful working environment you've broken the law for example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you and I pass each other on the sidewalk while you're walking your dog and I say, Wow, I'd kill to have a wiener dog that awesome! and you think OMG he's going to murder me and steal my puppy!
It would be right about that time that Rodney would have snuck up behind you and BITEBITEBITEBITEBITE!!!
We don't call him "the Shanker" for nothing.
I think I'm still not clarifying myself properly. I didn't intend to make a blanket statement I was trying to say that just because a person walking down the sidewalk thinks that your good morning qualifies as harassment doesn't mean it's intent was to harass. If somebody files a complaint against you and provides a documented record of behavior that created a hostile work environment even though you might not have intened to create a hostile environment, you've still committed actions that leave you open to the negative consequences of a lawsuit/charges. Not to be pedantic but you did title the thread "How do you stop this type of harassing behavior?" I wasn't trying to move the topic to the validity of criminal statues that seek to regulate social interactions. We could have that discussion but I think we'll mostly be in agreement.
I have a mixed breed that's a 25lbs ankle biter so I'm onto those kinds of canine shananigans. Our Ginger will bark ferociously to your face and wait for your back to be turned to go straight for your achilles or hamstring.
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
I am not seeing how my statement and your statement are in any way related.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
if we take the mere location of a woman to be "context" IE being on the street is context for "I dont want attention" (even when plenty of women DO want attention even if they are on the street)
then the "context" of wearing clothing, makeup, perfume, ect that is specifically designed to garner more attention, is context for that attention being given.(even though plenty of women dress up without directly wanting more attention)
If you are saying the context of a womans location determines acceptability of her getting attention, the so does the context of her clothing, perfume, ect play into that.
Since not everyone gets the same "context" from clothing, location, ect its a *HORRIBLE* way to determine if advances are welcome.
Rather then using some vauge, undefined, unwritten "context" that isnt even the same from one woman to another, the onyl recourse is to actually communicate with the woman and ask her if attention is welcome.
After all, what is different "contextually" between a woman walking down the street who wants attention, and one who does not?
After all, what is different "contextually" between a woman dancing at a club who wants attention, and one who does not?
Contextually, there is no difference, and since no one can read her mind using *context*, the only way to actually know if attention is wanted is by actually *asking the woman* if its welcome, and asking a woman if your attention is wanted is not harrasment.
edite to add:
here is an example of a sicilian trying to determine somethign based on "context" alone... naturally, it never really works, as context is subjective, often useless, often misleading, and always *ALWAYS* worse for communicating ideas/feelings then *ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING IDEAS/FEELINGS* using language
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
I am not seeing how my statement and your statement are in any way related.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
You know Easysauce, you are getting dangerously close to "Look at the way she dressed. She was asking for it!" as context.
However, I'm sure that is not your intent.
no its not my intent, and I am not coming close to saying it, if its wrong to judge what a woman wants based on the clothes she wears, why is it suddenly ok to judge what she wants based on her location? both are superficial, external forms of "context", to say that a woman who dresses in a mini skirt is "asking for it" is just as wrong as saying a woman who wears the most modest thing ever is "not asking for it"
my intent is to show that, you cannot use the street a woman happens to be walking on as context to "read her mind" any more then you can use her clothes...
a woman walking down the red light district street is not asking for attention, neither is one dressed in a mini skirt.
the opposite is also true,
a woman walking a less ill-reputed street is not advertising she does not want attention, nor is a woman in very concealing clothes asking not to be approached.
in both cases, the woman must actually communicate her thoughts for them to be known, to presume otherwise is to deny her agency in establishing her feelings regardless of external "context" like the street she is on, or the clothes she wears.
Using a womans location/clothes/perfume as "context" for *either* a yes or no answer to any questions you might have for her, denies her agency to make the choice for herself.
hence why you must actually ask her, and asking her is not harrassment.
jreilly89 wrote: Didn't this harassment video end up being a fake or a setup? Don't have it on me, but I thought the whole thing was set up to be like that.
I think throwing that out there without making any effort to source it at all is pretty weak sauce.
Thats why I put a question mark in there, because I wasn't sure. Went back and looked it up, and I guess it's semi-legit, but thanks for throwing me under the bus anyways, even though I didn't make a firm statement.
I have not seen any reputable source showing that the video was fake.
I think the set-up arguments stem from the fact that the video was put out by a non-profit (which is currently taking donations http://www.ihollaback.org/why-donate/ ) and the woman is an actress hired for the part http://shoshanabroberts.wix.com/shoshanabroberts. Hence why some cynics have suggested its meant more as a fund gathering publicity stunt than anything else. Also the fact the the video disproportionately shows men belonging to ethnic minorities doing the harassment has ruffled some feathers.
Does anything I've written mean that the men harassing her were right to do so? No, it obviously does not.
Does she have the right to wear whatever she wants without fear of reprisal from ne'er-do-wells? Of course she does.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
Except, we're not. In fact, if Frazz and I are on the same page, we're not talking about the woman at all.
So its mens fault that they cannot read minds and have to actually ask women if they would like to talk/date/ect?
again, what is the actual, distinguashable and concrete difference between a woman walking down the street who would not mind if someone asked her out, and one who would mind?
the answer is, "the one who says no is not interested, the one who says yes, is interested"
the answer is not "every single girl on the street doesnt want to talk to you, ever, and you are harrasing any girl you talk to if its on the street."
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
Except, we're not. In fact, if Frazz and I are on the same page, we're not talking about the woman at all.
So its mens fault that they cannot read minds and have to actually ask women if they would like to talk/date/ect?
again, what is the actual, distinguashable and concrete difference between a woman walking down the street who would not mind if someone asked her out, and one who would mind?
the answer is, "the one who says no is not interested, the one who says yes, is interested"
the answer is not "every single girl on the street doesnt want to talk to you, ever, and you are harrasing any girl you talk to if its on the street."
Allow me to spell out my (I won't speak for Frazz at this point) position.
Video is posted.
Cue quite a few posts of "hello isn't harassment", "I say hello all the time!", "Why is wishing someone good day harassment" and other such posts.
My context post is meant to essentially say: "context is key. Not everyone wishing someone a good evening is harassing someone. But looking at the context of the video, the situation many of you describe is not what is going on in this video".
I, personally, live in a small town. I say things like "have a good night", "have a good day" all the time. I say it to cashiers when they ring me up to be polite. I say it to people for whom I hold the door to be polite. I do not say it as shorthand for "I want my face buried between your thighs".
That is the context I'm talking about. The how and why they are behaving the way that they are; the social and nonverbal cues that go along with the actual words that provide context to the conversation.
what is the literal, measurable, concrete difference between a woman walking down the street who *wants* attention, and one who does not?
you say "The how and why they are behaving the way that they are; the social and nonverbal cues that go along with the actual words that provide context to the conversation. "
yet being on the street, the clothes one wears, makup, are all "social and non verbal cues" as well,
you wouldnt want a womans intentions to be judged by her choice of clothing, or shoes, so why does the pavement she walks on magically become "ok" to judge her on?
why is it ok to judge the men, based on non verbal ques (hey, they LOOK like they are creeping her, so they must be creeping her right?) but not ok to judge the woman based on similar non verbal ques (hey, she LOOKS like she wants attention, so she must want it right?)
saying "no one says hi just to say hi" is as disenfranchising to men as saying "no one wears a mini skirt to not get asked out" is to women...
Of course they want to get to know her beyond hi, there is nothing wrong with a man asking a woman if she likes him, putting such negative connotations such as "harassment" on a man for simply asking the question is a bit extreme.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
Except, we're not. In fact, if Frazz and I are on the same page, we're not talking about the woman at all.
So its mens fault that they cannot read minds and have to actually ask women if they would like to talk/date/ect?
again, what is the actual, distinguashable and concrete difference between a woman walking down the street who would not mind if someone asked her out, and one who would mind?
the answer is, "the one who says no is not interested, the one who says yes, is interested"
the answer is not "every single girl on the street doesnt want to talk to you, ever, and you are harrasing any girl you talk to if its on the street."
Allow me to spell out my (I won't speak for Frazz at this point) position.
Video is posted.
Cue quite a few posts of "hello isn't harassment", "I say hello all the time!", "Why is wishing someone good day harassment" and other such posts.
My context post is meant to essentially say: "context is key. Not everyone wishing someone a good evening is harassing someone. But looking at the context of the video, the situation many of you describe is not what is going on in this video".
I, personally, live in a small town. I say things like "have a good night", "have a good day" all the time. I say it to cashiers when they ring me up to be polite. I say it to people for whom I hold the door to be polite. I do not say it as shorthand for "I want my face buried between your thighs".
That is the context I'm talking about. The how and why they are behaving the way that they are; the social and nonverbal cues that go along with the actual words that provide context to the conversation.
You're kind of attributing a lot to people whom you don't know personally and only through a video. It's possible to argue that they said Hi because they want to get to know the woman better but the fact is you went straight from there to claiming they want to bury their faces in her thighs. I think this probably says a bit more about you than it does about them.
Also, my social interactions with other people are fine. There's no need to weep for them. It's just another example of you being a holier-than-thou kind of person considering you don't even know me, or even the different cultures we live in but can post such an asinine statement.
Sining wrote: If there's nothing to hide, then they CAN answer the questions. That tactic shouldn't be to stop people from throwing out questions even if those questions are there to spread FUD.
Is it true that your account is a sockpuppet account you started to get around a Dakka ban? I heard that somewhere.
It's new york. You now how many times I have had people yell threats of stabbing me in the throat, gouging out my eyes and skull fahking me for wearing the wrong sports jersey or team hat?
It's gakky thing, it's not a racial problem or misogynist issue. New York just has a lot of bad disgusting areas.
North Philly is pleasant compared to many streets in New York.
If there was a solution to this, I would assume parenting. Raise your kids to respect your fellow human beings. Don't be a dick.
Also keep in mind guys the whole 'Men must ask women out' thing does exist in our culture somewhat.
I don't know about new york but i'm sure there's a lot of vocal people there and plenty which aren't too great to talk to.
------------
I dunno i've heard some things like people being really bad with women over xbox live or similar. The truth being xbox live is terrible for everybody esp. depending on the game. Try playing a competitive, popular or possibly stupid game (like a shooter game) and all the worst people of the gaming crowd will be there. The fact they're also bad to women is not like the exception to them being bad so much as them being jerks to everybody for the most part. However play a game that is less popular but smarter may have a nicer crowd.
That said women often being a smaller group in most games and the inability to know what they look like changes attitudes. I get the feeling some guys imagine they look way better than they are. I mean don't get me wrong the girls could be a nice catch but sometimes the only thing a girl needs to do to get popularity for gamer guys is to be female and also a gamer. Because you know being a woman is like a big deal and stuff esp. if you play games.
----------
I feel it's also important to have different views from different people. As was said not every woman wants the same thing (though if she didn't like it she should show she doesn't or doesn't care). Some like flirting but some will show if they do or don't. I know somebody once mentioned our culture has a lot of victimization of women but in my view a lot of this is just perception.
----------
Finally the woman in the original video was attractive. This is a big difference to say an unattractive or average looking person walking the streets of new york.
----------
Edit: Also why do people have to be so angered by people of different opinions? Doesn't each have a bit of merit. Then again this is the off-topic forum .
Oh and i don't think i'd like being in New York either if it's anything like L.A. Part of it is that there's too many people, part is it's very dirty and filled with graffiti and part of it is everything good and bad rolled into one super large city. I'm more of a medium sized city kind of guy so that's part of it too.
Really? I thought L.A. was filled with fake people.
I'm not sure how i'd feel about seattle if that's the case. If it's abstract art then they should get a real job but if it's the other kind then it's probably good in some cases. I can't stop thinking of Bob Ross (the artist) and how peaceful painting seemed to be. Then again i hate painting my models so that's one thing i don't like to paint.
To be fair 'The American Mentality' can work with any country in power at any time. That said a lot of countries with power or wealth in fairly recent times still think things revolve around them or have contempt for countries that seemingly took the reigns of power.
New York is not that bad. Its filled with people who think the world revolves around them. (I.E. The American Mentality)
Chicago is full of rude people.
Detroit is empty.
Miami is filled with fakes.
St. Louis. Hide your wife, hide your kids.
LA is filled with lost souls.
Seattle is filled with artists.
Austin is filled with.... I don't know I've never been there I can't really say.
No, no. I am thinking of New York. New York is diverse but has it's fair share of hipsters. I see them all the time. Every time I go there to visit my friend I have to hear them with their raised voices on how smart they are at a coffee shop or bar for having gone to some gakky community college and got a degree in liberal arts or gender studies.
I love the comments I get on football jerseys from them of "perpetuating" a sexist industry and "slave" labor in sweat shops. Because I'm sure your gakky trilby and shirt with a pun on it was made by someone who wasn't a 9 year old boy working for 50 cents an hour 16 hours a day.
Hipsters are starting to move north into my area. First it started as just a tourist spot for them to see waterfalls and leaves change in the autumn. But now they are moving in.... forever.
I'm not sure how i'd feel about seattle if that's the case. If it's abstract art then they should get a real job but if it's the other kind then it's probably good in some cases. I can't stop thinking of Bob Ross (the artist) and how peaceful painting seemed to be. Then again i hate painting my models so that's one thing i don't like to paint.
To be fair 'The American Mentality' can work with any country in power at any time. That said a lot of countries with power or wealth in fairly recent times still think things revolve around them or have contempt for countries that seemingly took the reigns of power.
Yup LA is filled with fake people.
I'm not a fan of the guy, but Shaq said LA had more fake people than fake boobs.
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
I am not seeing how my statement and your statement are in any way related.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
You know Easysauce, you are getting dangerously close to "Look at the way she dressed. She was asking for it!" as context.
However, I'm sure that is not your intent.
Blame the VIctim! If someone can Godwin this thread I get a Bingo.
If you're that close to a Bingo! I'll fall on the grenade for ya.
You know who wasn't allowed to speak to women walking down the street? The Jews in Nazi Germany because they had been rounded up and sent to death camps. You can stop the street harassment by sending millions of people to death camps, there can be no civility without discipline! National Socialism keeps the streets polite so if you want to ban pleasantries exchanged between strangers you're just as bad as Hitler.
so a woman wearing clothes, and make up to accentuate her looks is asking for it then?
I am not seeing how my statement and your statement are in any way related.
context my good man, if walking down the street is "context" then so is "clothes, make up, ect"
You know Easysauce, you are getting dangerously close to "Look at the way she dressed. She was asking for it!" as context.
However, I'm sure that is not your intent.
Blame the VIctim! If someone can Godwin this thread I get a Bingo.
If you're that close to a Bingo! I'll fall on the grenade for ya.
You know who wasn't allowed to speak to women walking down the street? The Jews in Nazi Germany because they had been rounded up and sent to death camps. You can stop the street harassment by sending millions of people to death camps, there can be no civility without discipline! National Socialism keeps the streets polite so if you want to ban pleasantries exchanged between strangers you're just as bad as Hitler.
Well to start with the video: it's...debatable. To begin with, a lot of what is considered "harassment" isn't. If you think that saying "Good morning!" or "What's up?" is harassment, the chances are, you're a sociopath. Trying to hit on any other human, be it man or female, isn't harassment. It's basic behavior. If someone tries to hit someone by saying "Hey miss, you got a minute or two?", gets ignored and then backs off, that's perfectly fine. If you disagree, you got issues. Period. If the same guy keeps closing in or remains persistent, then we're entering the harassment area. And, of course, any comments like "Nice donkey!".
That creepy guy following you around...not okay. AT ALL.
The video's racist portrayal doesn't do it much good either, though, to be honest. But alas, that's bound to happen when you look for a specific area to film in
How you could stop this? You can't. I'll start giving my daughter self-defense classes at the age of 8/9 as that's the best thing any human could do at any time. If someone then gets on her too much, he'll get his buttocks kicked. And if I find out about it, I'll sue his sorry butt so that he'll forget about any secondary education.
...and really Dakka? Noone has yet said that she should not have worn jeans with "Sexy Eagle" on her butt? I want my "Blame the Victim!" card. NOW.
Sigvatr wrote: Well to start with the video: it's...debatable. To begin with, a lot of what is considered "harassment" isn't. If you think that saying "Good morning!" or "What's up?" is harassment, the chances are, you're a sociopath. Trying to hit on any other human, be it man or female, isn't harassment. It's basic behavior. If someone tries to hit someone by saying "Hey miss, you got a minute or two?", gets ignored and then backs off, that's perfectly fine. If you disagree, you got issues. Period. If the same guy keeps closing in or remains persistent, then we're entering the harassment area. And, of course, any comments like "Nice donkey!".
That creepy guy following you around...not okay. AT ALL.
The video's racist portrayal doesn't do it much good either, though, to be honest. But alas, that's bound to happen when you look for a specific area to film in
you've clearly never been harassed by bums on the street before.
you've clearly never been harassed by bums on the street before.
Go down a street in a problematic quarter, dressed in a tailor-made suit, expensive watch, expensive suitcase and you'll be walking down the Alley of Insults. It's ridiculous. People think that you symbolize the absolute evil and think it's totally a-ok to insult you because society thinks that insulting high-rollers is just fair.
New York is not that bad. Its filled with people who think the world revolves around them. (I.E. The American Mentality)
Chicago is full of rude people.
Detroit is empty.
Miami is filled with fakes.
St. Louis. Hide your wife, hide your kids.
LA is filled with lost souls.
Seattle is filled with artists.
Austin is filled with.... I don't know I've never been there I can't really say.
Those sound like the most stereotypical stereotypes I've heard in a while. I haven't been to Chicago proper in a while, but last time I was up there for a business trip, people seemed no more or less rude than anywhere. I don't know what 'fakes' are, but all I can think of are old people and college kids in... well, really anywhere in Florida. Might have just been the areas though. And St. Louis? Really? What areas of St. Louis were you vacationing in?
Go down a street in a problematic quarter, dressed in a tailor-made suit, expensive watch, expensive suitcase and you'll be walking down the Alley of Insults. It's ridiculous. People think that you symbolize the absolute evil and think it's totally a-ok to insult you because society thinks that insulting high-rollers is just fair.
Good sir, I recommend you nary a doff of your top hat to such ilk, continue covering your face with your handkerchief so as to best maintain your sensibilities amidst the reek of such unwashed vagabonds, and make for fairer environs absent of such scoundrels and uncouth ruffians.
Those sound like the most stereotypical stereotypes I've heard in a while.
What's an unstereotypical stereotype?
Well, the redundancy was supposed to be at attempt at humor, but I suppose you could make an argument for an attempt at stereotyping people in ways not pervasively held to be true? Maybe that's just a generalization. I don't know.
but its ok, the rules of dakka allow people to personally attack, and be rude to, people of certain classes that our society allows/encourages discrimination/stereotyping against.
but its ok, the rules of dakka allow people to personally attack, and be rude to, people of certain classes that our society allows/encourages discrimination/stereotyping against.
The model in the video is very pretty.
She was wearing well fitting clothes that reinforce that she is pretty.
She is not responsible for those with poor impulse control and their behavior.
Many communications she received were really poorly performed attempts at gaining her notice.
Yes, some other elements were really creepy.
So, how do we train guys into understanding that a random encounter with a very good looking person is not an opportunity to try to ask her out?
Or in some cases, to take a better look which is rather insulting.
At the very least to drive the idea that chances of it all working out is close to nil.
What is rather sad is many comments were based on a genuine appreciation of her appearance.
This is probably why they feel it is okay to express themselves "it is only paying her a compliment" no matter how unwanted it may be.
Rather funny people were expecting her to be "polite" and say thank-you.
Channeling my own selfish lizard brain if I were them I would be thanking my lucky stars she is not wearing a large loose sweater that form-fits like a sack of potatoes.
If someone was to walk down the street and look that good, why creep them out and discourage them from dressing nice?
Yep, short-sighted thinking coupled with poor impulse control.
New York is not that bad. Its filled with people who think the world revolves around them. (I.E. The American Mentality)
Chicago is full of rude people.
Detroit is empty.
Miami is filled with fakes.
St. Louis. Hide your wife, hide your kids.
LA is filled with lost souls.
Seattle is filled with artists.
Austin is filled with.... I don't know I've never been there I can't really say.
Those sound like the most stereotypical stereotypes I've heard in a while. I haven't been to Chicago proper in a while, but last time I was up there for a business trip, people seemed no more or less rude than anywhere. I don't know what 'fakes' are, but all I can think of are old people and college kids in... well, really anywhere in Florida. Might have just been the areas though. And St. Louis? Really? What areas of St. Louis were you vacationing in?
Agreed.
Also... where in St. Louis did you vaycay in? I love my City because I was raised here... but, as a "destination"?? o.O
We have free Zoo... St. Louis Cardinals... aaaaaaaaand... I got nuthin.
The Arch.
A really big brewery.
When I was a kid a hostess plant that made tweenkies. Plant tours were AWESOME.
An awesome concert/ballet hall.
Did you know tweenkies really do have a shelf life?
Also... where in St. Louis did you vaycay in? I love my City because I was raised here... but, as a "destination"?? o.O
We have free Zoo... St. Louis Cardinals... aaaaaaaaand... I got nuthin.
Well, I mean, depending on how remote an area you're coming from and your respective age, there's the history/art museums, the science center, Six Flags, uh... the... world's largest Amoco sign?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, we have a pretty good concert scene. That's not exactly vacation type stuff there, but we have stuff like Powell Hall and the Peabody Opera Hall (which is what Frazz was probably talking about). That might appeal to people who like really old but really cool buildings.
And if you count the surrounding 100 miles or so, you can add in Meramec Caverns. The damned billboards hardly let you forget it!
New York is not that bad. Its filled with people who think the world revolves around them. (I.E. The American Mentality)
Chicago is full of rude people.
Detroit is empty.
Miami is filled with fakes.
St. Louis. Hide your wife, hide your kids.
LA is filled with lost souls.
Seattle is filled with artists.
Austin is filled with.... I don't know I've never been there I can't really say.
Those sound like the most stereotypical stereotypes I've heard in a while. I haven't been to Chicago proper in a while, but last time I was up there for a business trip, people seemed no more or less rude than anywhere. I don't know what 'fakes' are, but all I can think of are old people and college kids in... well, really anywhere in Florida. Might have just been the areas though. And St. Louis? Really? What areas of St. Louis were you vacationing in?
Agreed.
Also... where in St. Louis did you vaycay in? I love my City because I was raised here... but, as a "destination"?? o.O
We have free Zoo... St. Louis Cardinals... aaaaaaaaand... I got nuthin.
Also... where in St. Louis did you vaycay in? I love my City because I was raised here... but, as a "destination"?? o.O
We have free Zoo... St. Louis Cardinals... aaaaaaaaand... I got nuthin.
Well, I mean, depending on how remote an area you're coming from and your respective age, there's the history/art museums, the science center, Six Flags, uh... the... world's largest Amoco sign?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, we have a pretty good concert scene. That's not exactly vacation type stuff there, but we have stuff like Powell Hall and the Peabody Opera Hall (which is what Frazz was probably talking about). That might appeal to people who like really old but really cool buildings.
And if you count the surrounding 100 miles or so, you can add in Meramec Caverns. The damned billboards hardly let you forget it!
Maybe we're spoiled because we have "good" standard of living here.
You don't have to be super rich/super star to live "good" here compared to living in those "desination" cities.
daedalus wrote:Good sir, I recommend you nary a doff of your top hat to such ilk, continue covering your face with your handkerchief so as to best maintain your sensibilities amidst the reek of such unwashed vagabonds, and make for fairer environs absent of such scoundrels and uncouth ruffians.
Most women actually do enjoy being complimented... most people do in fact enjoy complements and attention.
but Ill make a deal with feminists, Ill start campaining against street compliments so no woman should have to bear the burden of a 50/50 chance that someone will complement them every time the go out,
as soon as feminists start campaining against the fact that almost all divorces end up with the woman getting at least half the guys stuff on top of her own.
as soon as feminists start campaining against the fact that almost all divorces end up with the woman getting at least half the guys stuff on top of her own.
And the kids, even if she has demonstrated repeatedly that she is a drug addict or otherwise incapable of raising smaller humans.
Feels like the same-old issue:
Is this person more "likely" to get attention based on looks? Yes.
Is she "deserving" of unwanted attention? No.
Not being a card carrying member of "beautiful people" good looks give many perks and in this case has some disadvantages.
Pretty much anything in life has a cost and benefit.
The behaviors are in question for appropriateness but the main factor is motivation:
The "average" person would like to be associated with a good looking person due to attractiveness and cultural status.
I hate to say that the only way to stop harassing behavior in a realistic way is to show as little as possible of what people would "want".
Same advice for decreasing odds of getting mugged (dress down) or attacked by a wild animal (do not carry smelly food) or whatever.
She was not dressed provocatively but her general figure was readily discernible.
Our typical go-to item to get what we want is to modify appearance:
- Dress-up for an interview to get hired.
- I put on my glasses and bring a folio when visiting suppliers to set a business tone.
- Wear well fitted clothes for the clubs (funny how good clothes can make me look as good as "beautiful people" who dress down).
- Wear baggy clothes when exercising when not wanting to be noticed at the club.
I would have liked to see her do another run down the same path with the following modifications:
- Hair in ponytail.
- Baseball cap.
- Sunglasses. (Key item)
- Light jacket overtop draping down from chest not pulled-in and just past hips.
- Earphones in (do not need to be on).
Pretty much all of that would say "not interested in being talked to or at".
Sigvatr wrote: You guys forget that this isn't a video of a woman who felt the need to do so.
She was hired by a feminist organization to make the video, she was asked to do it in a specific area and she was instructed on what clothing to wear.
Good video above though. As I said - if you feel being harassed by someone saying "Good morning, how you're doing?", then you have issues.
Or you live ina major city and recognize it for what it is. It may not be legally defined harassment, but its definitely harassment.
If you consider this harassment, then you better lock yourself up in a nuclear bunker in Antarctica.
1. I doin't think we're working on the same definition.
2. Antartic bunkers are for European wussies. Real men build fortresses in the Australian Deathworld and surrounded by moats filled with crocodiles and full auto killer drop bear launchers.
Or you live ina major city and recognize it for what it is. It may not be legally defined harassment, but its definitely harassment.
Its not legally defined as harrasment, so its not harrasment... period.. legal definitions exist for a reason.
Its also not harrasment to compliment or talk to people... the mere act of asking someone out, saying hi or complementing them with the intent of asking them out, is also not harrasment, calling it such is hippocritical in a society that literally forces men to be the ones to initate relationships.
I mean, taking half a guys $ in the divorce is *stealing*.. not by the legal term of course, but its still *stealing* so where are the women calling for the equal right to pay their ex husbands alimony, lose half their stuff, and their kids?
Actually, there are very few laws called "harassment" so you're er wrong.
I have thought of a good answer though. Every time she's walking and someone talks to her she should hit the siren on a bullhorn at them with NO THANK YOU! After all, she's just replying to their innocent query with an innocent reply.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Frazzled wrote: Actually, there are very few laws called "harassment" so you're er wrong.
I have thought of a good answer though. Every time she's walking and someone talks to her she should hit the siren on a bullhorn at them with NO THANK YOU! After all, she's just replying to their innocent query with an innocent reply.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
HOW DARE YOU TALK TO ME YOU HOMELESS PERSON!
just because you have a physical need, hunger, that I can possibly help you meet, doesnt mean you have the right to talk to me.
just because you have a physical need, sex, that I can possibly help you meet, doesnt mean you have the right to talk to me.
WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY TO ME MERE MORTAL....
wait, we have list of rights?
and thats the first one? really? the first one on the freedom list is freedom of speech, even if you are some hobo or heaven for bid, male, trying to talk to a pretty white girl?
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary?
I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Frazzled wrote: Actually, there are very few laws called "harassment" so you're er wrong.
I have thought of a good answer though. Every time she's walking and someone talks to her she should hit the siren on a bullhorn at them with NO THANK YOU! After all, she's just replying to their innocent query with an innocent reply.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
HOW DARE YOU TALK TO ME YOU HOMELESS PERSON!
I like that. However I prefer to ask what clothing size they are for my new people suit.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary? I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Yes actually, he suddenly appeared and was in touching distance and wasn't taking no for an answer while getting closer. At the time there had been multiple stabbings of bystanders by bums. In my younger days I probably would have just kicked in the head.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary?
I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Yes actually, he suddenly appeared and was in touching distance and wasn't taking no for an answer while getting closer.
At the time there had been multiple stabbings of bystanders by bums. In my younger days I probably would have just kicked in the head.
Yeah, the homeless guy is the one who was acting inappropriate, not the guy who wanted to kick in his head.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary?
I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Yes actually, he suddenly appeared and was in touching distance and wasn't taking no for an answer while getting closer.
At the time there had been multiple stabbings of bystanders by bums. In my younger days I probably would have just kicked in the head.
Yeah, the homeless guy is the one who was acting inappropriate, not the guy who wanted to kick in his head.
Exactly.
Its interesting, them harassing me is ok, but if I respond I'm the bad guy. Blame the VICTIM!
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary?
I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Yes actually, he suddenly appeared and was in touching distance and wasn't taking no for an answer while getting closer.
At the time there had been multiple stabbings of bystanders by bums. In my younger days I probably would have just kicked in the head.
Yeah, the homeless guy is the one who was acting inappropriate, not the guy who wanted to kick in his head.
Umm... given what Frazz described, I'm definitely inclined to side with him.
If there's a recent history of a certain action going on, being done by a specific "group" or "type" of person/people, then I'd definitely react in such a way that fits the recent history.
Wait... its a 2 minutes long and named 10 hours of walking. So she edited it out for the best ones?
Cause if I walked 10 hours through the city I'd get crazies talking to me too. I could cherry pick the best ones into a two minute video just like this.
Plus 2 minutes out of 10 hours is less than 1%. 100 weirdos in a city of what? 15 million? C'mon.
Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
Okay.... that was mental gymnastics there. Im going to count that as harassment.
She is also accepting donations for a cause that has no outline on what plans to do about it.
Ravenous D wrote: Wait... its a 2 minutes long and named 10 hours of walking. So she edited it out for the best ones?
Cause if I walked 10 hours through the city I'd get crazies talking to me too. I could cherry pick the best ones into a two minute video just like this.
Plus 2 minutes out of 10 hours is less than 1%. 100 weirdos in a city of what? 15 million? C'mon.
This is misleading.
On the flip side if you were walking around the city for 10 hours I think we'd all be crazy at that point.
Ravenous D wrote: Wait... its a 2 minutes long and named 10 hours of walking. So she edited it out for the best ones?
Cause if I walked 10 hours through the city I'd get crazies talking to me too. I could cherry pick the best ones into a two minute video just like this.
Plus 2 minutes out of 10 hours is less than 1%. 100 weirdos in a city of what? 15 million? C'mon.
This is misleading.
not to mention, given how tame all the "cherry picked" cat calls are, if the worst of the worst after editing is "hi beautiful" then its a tempest in a tea cup entirely... there was only one guy (the one who followed her) who could reasonably be called out as crossing any kind of line.
not to mention the exact same thing happens to men who walk the streets, and that plenty of women(people in general) enjoy being complemented and getting attention.
It is sexist to state that because one woman doesnt want attention on the streets, that all women do not want attention on the streets. And asking someone is the only acceptable way to know what someone wants.
asking someone out/for money/for help/for anything politely, with words, and not blocking their way or preventing them from just ignoring you, is not harrasment.
otherwise its "harrasment" every time a busker asks for $, or a homeless person asks for $, or greenpeace asks for $, or someone asks for directions/the time/your #, or a beaten man asks for you to call an ambulance....
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
Hmmmm... "acceptable" would typically be a "no" for anyone female, married or has a daughter or even just a bit of empathy.
"Expected" would be a sad yes.
Like with anyone, you dress to the level of notice you wish to have.
No, I am not blaming the victim... I take responsibility for ME not for others to behave, because I have no control over them.
I am sure change could be made that for every inappropriate comment the person gets sprayed with mace in the face.
Anyone that happens to, would be VERY cautious of any comment on the street again.
Ah, maybe this:
Spoiler:
This would then be infringing on their rights to speak freely or be safe from harm but changing behavior would have to be about that drastic for the harassment not to happen.
Only other suggestion is salt-peter in the water supply: no libido = no pick-up comments.
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
yes, it is perfectly acceptable to talk to women, regardless of where that woman is.
talking to people is perfectly acceptable. ignoring people who try to talk to you is also perfectly acceptable.
in ten hours walking the streets, by the OP videos definition of harrasment, I get harrased just as much as she does.
Your opinion seems to be its ok to ask men on the street for things, but when you ask a woman on the street its "harrasment".
again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
why dont you be honest and state you think its absolutely acceptable that men:
lose half their cash/stuff in divorces to women, regardless of if that woman needs/deserves it
lose their kids as a rule in divorces
lose their lives being forced to fight in wars
have little/no recourse to the law in domestic violence cases where they are the victim
are given unwanted attention in the streets by being asked out by random people.
live in a sociaty that forces them to initate relationships, then calls them harrasing creepers when they try to initiate relationships
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
Okay.... that was mental gymnastics there. Im going to count that as harassment.
She is also accepting donations for a cause that has no outline on what plans to do about it.
Do you think it is acceptable to treat people like that?
Do you think it is acceptable to treat people like that?
Im noticing a distinct lack of answering that same question when posed to yourself.
Is it ok to talk to men in the street? yes no?
how about the other ways we treat men i listed, are those acceptable to you? yes no?
spoilered for language
Spoiler:
when a woman is attacked by a guy, people jump in to help her,
in the reverse
this happens
when a man spikes a womans drink, people jump in to help her
in reverse
so you think this is acceptable behavior killkrazy? or at least, so un important that having people say "hi beautiful" on the street is more important?
I dont hear feminists *ever* talk about these inequalities despite the movement supposedly being about equality.
While I don't agree with Killkrazy's comments and see them as intentionally inflammatory and to be honest, personally, I found it quite disappointing for a mod here. - It's the very definition of putting words into peoples mouths.
In any case. The woman in the video was an actress hired by those behind the 'hollaback' campaign - this has not been hidden in any way shape or form. So, it would seem fair any issues with the portrayal and editing towards the campaign and not the actress.
As opposed to the Louder/Crowder video. perhaps the guy would have a point on the whole subtleties and nuances of acceptable behaviour. Then he ends with 'and also that feminists suck.'
Although, to be honest, it's an interesting reflection on things in my view. That video takes issues with the campaigns portrayals of the 'have a nice day' type thing and uses that to sum up / illustrate the entire campaign, I'm not good on my logical fallacies but, I believe that's 'reducto ad absurdum?'. While only acknowledging the more 'concerning' ones.
Whereas, in an almost exact mirror on that, I'm sure people will be taking the 'and also feminists suck' comment as an opportunity to dismiss the rest of the actual thoughts and comments in the video, which do, in my view, have a grain of truth to them.
So, we have people going after the 'low hanging fruit' of each of the 'arguments' while bolstering their sides opinions on the parts they strongly agree with on their own side.
All the while, there's the avoidance of constructive discussion on the really nasty, hard, tricky parts of it, that humanity is going to have to sort out somehow.
To be fair, we don't know what they did when they had their phones up, as it's rather..... narcissistic to think that any time anyone of the opposite gender pulls their phone up they are taking a picture of you. Or the same gender for those so inclined.
Also, turns out women are people too.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Did I just watch 8 minutes of dick cam?
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
You completely miss the point.
Most of that video wasn't "harassment". Not even close. The video doesn't show harassment, but it does show how the meaning of harassment is being diluted to the point of insignificance.
Easy E wrote: The thread proves that the only way to stop this behavior is to kill all humans!
To be fair, we don't know what they did when they had their phones up, as it's rather..... narcissistic to think that any time anyone of the opposite gender pulls their phone up they are taking a picture of you. Or the same gender for those so inclined.
Agreed. Though, given the video, I wouldn't be surprised. As you said, women are people too, and people often objectify one another.
To be fair, we don't know what they did when they had their phones up, as it's rather..... narcissistic to think that any time anyone of the opposite gender pulls their phone up they are taking a picture of you. Or the same gender for those so inclined.
Agreed. Though, given the video, I wouldn't be surprised. As you said, women are people too, and people often objectify one another.
Not quite. From what I gather (because I knew the bottom section would explode in bile and negativity) it's in a subway system in London where reception is basically non-existent.
Kilkrazy wrote: Instead of saying blah blah blah "feminist", blah blah blah "tight clothes, blah blah blah "deal with it", why don't you be honest and say you think it is absolutely acceptable to treat women this way.
You completely miss the point.
Most of that video wasn't "harassment". Not even close. The video doesn't show harassment, but it does show how the meaning of harassment is being diluted to the point of insignificance.
This is what I find so distasteful about the aftermath of all of this, it blurs the line between what's objectively normal human interaction and harassment. Harassment speaks to ill intent.
"It is commonly understood as behavior intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive." - wikipedia
The repetition isn't coming from the same "harasser" but the way the video is put together. Intent is generally an inference, based on behavior, only the guy who followed her to my thinking raises a suspicion of ill intent,
As a victim of violent crime, I understand being afraid of strangers but there's an anxiety and agoraphobia factor to consider with how you perceive potential threats, I was harassed verbally and followed before being assaulted, it was harassment because it was continuous, they followed us and they were literally uttering threats, that to me is text book harassment. Now a days someone can over hear you in conversation on a university campus saying a word they disagree with and that's enough to qualify as harassment.
If we're at the point where humans require psychic consent to be communicated with and everyone has veto power to be offended and accuse other of harassment, I think we're about out of ideas. The new school on harassment wants to make it subjective as feth, which is a terrible idea.
"you don't understand officer, they really hurt my feelings" "Oh they did? Well it' must be an open and shut case of harassment, no point looking any further".
Human interaction is messy, I get called big guy all the time (I'm fat), I don't care for it, but I recognize for some it's a term of endearment, there's no intent there to upset me in pretty much all situations in which I've been called big guy. At the same time, I sort of take offense, but my god, if I'm going to characterize people unknowingly hurting my feelings as harassers it says more about me having a victim complex than those individuals being "harassers".
Not quite. From what I gather (because I knew the bottom section would explode in bile and negativity) it's in a subway system in London where reception is basically non-existent.
I've regularly sent and received texts in the London and NYC subway systems.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
*sigh*
IMO, there goes the decline of human-to-human interactions. Which is further exacerbated by our technologies.
Ultimately, the problem with folks buying into this is that these are "harassing behaviors"... and it has to do with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or sociosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your knockers are thrust three feet in front of you. It's this fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity that is alien to their worldview.
whembly wrote: Ultimately, the problem with folks buying into this is that these are "harassing behaviors"... and it has to do with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or sociosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your knockers are thrust three feet in front of you. It's this fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity that is alien to their worldview.
And this is just nonsense. Men can be turned on, but men can also learn some self control. And when they refuse to we can criticize them for their poor behavior.
I once sent a homeless guy cartwheeling by doing that (just my voice), because he got too close.
Or you know, you could have just have said it in a polite tone. Was he/she really that scary?
I still don't understand why people think that it's ok to hang gak on homeless people. The only thing that separates your from them is an abode and a weeks worth of showering.
Yes actually, he suddenly appeared and was in touching distance and wasn't taking no for an answer while getting closer.
At the time there had been multiple stabbings of bystanders by bums. In my younger days I probably would have just kicked in the head.
Yeah, the homeless guy is the one who was acting inappropriate, not the guy who wanted to kick in his head.
Exactly.
Its interesting, them harassing me is ok, but if I respond I'm the bad guy. Blame the VICTIM!
Actually, I was talking about you. I've never heard of "bum stabbings" other than people stabbing the bums, but also, I don't think someone panhandling qualifies as life threatening behavior. Yeah, its annoying as gak to deal with and I've had a lot of really persistent bums, but I'd never kick them in the face
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
Thanks, Peregrine! I almost talked to someone on the street. God, that would have ruined their whole day. What an donkey-cave I would have been.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
People talking to others on the street WITHOUT WEARING THEIR RED "I WANT TO TALK WITH OTHERS" ARMLET. What is this?! Just think of the children! THE CHILDREN!
If people are afraid / offended by others normally talking to them on the street, they should either get professional help or stay in their basement, receiving food via a door slit.
Come with us, in the magical world of peace and love, where everyone just ignores everyone. Because...love.
OK... So people know it's wrong to stare right? An erection is not an invitation. (People do know it's not cool right? Or am I missing something?)
I think the catch is realizing that we are humans and... welcome to the real world! Is it rude to do it? Yeah but catch is we do a lot of things wrong in our life. And being lewd isn't that big of a thing (although if they were taking pictures that's a bit of a step where I go come on guys really?)
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
So, essentially, no one should ever suggest that they're open to conversation?
Ultimately, the problem with folks buying into this is that these are "harassing behaviors"... and it has to do with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or sociosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your knockers are thrust three feet in front of you. It's this fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity that is alien to their worldview.
Sigvatr wrote: People talking to others on the street WITHOUT WEARING THEIR RED "I WANT TO TALK WITH OTHERS" ARMLET. What is this?! Just think of the children! THE CHILDREN!
If people are afraid / offended by others normally talking to them on the street, they should either get professional help or stay in their basement, receiving food via a door slit.
It's "Stranger Danger" writ large. And it's sooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
So how do you talk to people then.
Bolded the answer. There's nothing wrong with talking to people in contexts where conversation is expected and the person you're talking to appears open to conversation. The issue here is things like expecting every random person walking down the street is just waiting to pay attention to you, even when they've done nothing to even acknowledge that you exist.
easysauce wrote: again, what is the *concrete* difference between a woman on the street who does not want attention, and one who does? both exist, how do we tell the difference between the two?
You don't. Unless someone has done something that suggests they're open to conversation (and no, the fact that they happen to be within talking distance of you does not count) you leave them alone. Otherwise what you're saying is that your desire to have a conversation is more important than the risk of making someone uncomfortable, and that's just selfish behavior that we shouldn't tolerate.
So how do you talk to people then.
Bolded the answer. There's nothing wrong with talking to people in contexts where conversation is expected and the person you're talking to appears open to conversation. The issue here is things like expecting every random person walking down the street is just waiting to pay attention to you, even when they've done nothing to even acknowledge that you exist.
The problem is that's a non-answer, there is no way to create a context in a manner that everyone can identify as "Function: Open to Conversation Yes/No." because most people have a vast different way of showing they wish to be social, rather then a one fits all manner of trying to speak to people.
You know the way most people simply deal with this? Either by talking (Ohhh nooo), and declining the conversation, or ignoring them, or the myriad of ways people use to actually speak and contextualize with people by actually being a person, rather then someone with issues with actually speaking with people.
I mean I know some people who would enjoy such levels of context, but typically the types of people on that level usually have issues with being social to begin with.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: The problem is that's a non-answer, there is no way to create a context in a manner that everyone can identify as "Function: Open to Conversation Yes/No." because most people have a vast different way of showing they wish to be social, rather then a one fits all manner of trying to speak to people.
Then if it isn't obvious that someone is open to talking to you (whether by their actions or because they're in a context where conversation is expected) you err on the side of not bothering them. Seriously, what is so important about talking to some random stranger that you need clear proof that they aren't interested before you give up?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: The problem is that's a non-answer, there is no way to create a context in a manner that everyone can identify as "Function: Open to Conversation Yes/No." because most people have a vast different way of showing they wish to be social, rather then a one fits all manner of trying to speak to people.
Then if it isn't obvious that someone is open to talking to you (whether by their actions or because they're in a context where conversation is expected) you err on the side of not bothering them. Seriously, what is so important about talking to some random stranger that you need clear proof that they aren't interested before you give up?
Why not? I've met plenty of good friends and people that wish to speak again after a simple chat walking down the street. The thing of the matter is you've put down "Walking down the street" as a context for non-discussion, which makes it hard to gauge where at all you'd find a level of context for discussion with a person without a literal sign saying "Speak to me" Not to mention the odd issue you have that making someone "Uncomfortable" just by saying Hello is something we shouldn't tolerate.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Why not? I've met plenty of good friends and people that wish to speak again after a simple chat walking down the street.
Because a lot of people don't want to be bothered in that kind of situation. Why exactly is it so important to have a meaningless "hi, nice weather today" conversation with someone that you have to risk intruding into the personal space of someone who doesn't want to talk to you?
The thing of the matter is you've put down "Walking down the street" as a context for non-discussion, which makes it hard to gauge where at all you'd find a level of context for discussion with a person without a literal sign saying "Speak to me"
No, it's very easy to figure out if you understand context. For example, if the person is at some kind of social event where everyone is talking to each other then it's probably ok to start a conversation. Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the best way to tell if some random stranger on the street wants to talk you should invest more effort into getting out and going to places where social interaction is encouraged?
Not to mention the odd issue you have that making someone "Uncomfortable" just by saying Hello is something we shouldn't tolerate.
Why should we tolerate it? If I'm just walking along minding my own business I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to have to have an awkward "no, don't bother me" conversation with you, I don't want to have to listen to you keep trying to get my attention because you thought I was only ignoring you because I didn't hear you the first time, and I certainly don't want to have a pointless conversation about the weather or whatever other meaningless thing you want to talk about. So why shouldn't I be annoyed when you insist on making me respond to you? And why shouldn't I think you need to learn some manners if you think that it's ok to risk bothering someone just because you feel that you're entitled to try.
And of course this is even more relevant in the context of the OP, which is men talking to random women on the street. In that situation you have all the usual "I don't want to be disturbed" issues, and then you add in the fact that some men don't know how to take rejection gracefully. So if they don't want to talk to you they have to think about whether it's better to take the risk that you're the kind of person who is going to get mad if the don't respond to you (or tell you to STFU and stop bothering them) or to suffer through an awkward and unwanted conversation that hopefully makes you disappear as uneventfully as possible. So essentially what you're saying is that it's so important to say hello/make someone aware of your "compliment"/whatever that it's worth taking that risk. And I really don't see why this should be considered acceptable behavior.
Because a lot of people don't want to be bothered in that kind of situation. Why exactly is it so important to have a meaningless "hi, nice weather today" conversation with someone that you have to risk intruding into the personal space of someone who doesn't want to talk to you?
Because people are social creatures, even an introvert like myself desires to enjoy a conversation once in a while with people.
No, it's very easy to figure out if you understand context. For example, if the person is at some kind of social event where everyone is talking to each other then it's probably ok to start a conversation. Perhaps instead of trying to figure out the best way to tell if some random stranger on the street wants to talk you should invest more effort into getting out and going to places where social interaction is encouraged?
Essentially, speak only at clubs or social events and never speak otherwise? What sort of social bubble are you trying to have enforced in the street?
Why should we tolerate it? If I'm just walking along minding my own business I don't want to talk to you. I don't want to have to have an awkward "no, don't bother me" conversation with you, I don't want to have to listen to you keep trying to get my attention because you thought I was only ignoring you because I didn't hear you the first time, and I certainly don't want to have a pointless conversation about the weather or whatever other meaningless thing you want to talk about. So why shouldn't I be annoyed when you insist on making me respond to you? And why shouldn't I think you need to learn some manners if you think that it's ok to risk bothering someone just because you feel that you're entitled to try.
Here's a hint, being out in public forces you to interact with people, people do not walk around in bubbles of no social interaction. If you really desire to stay away from all human contact try a car. That way you can turn up the Radio and freely ignore everyone who sits outside your own personal bubble of space.
Though considering your thoughts on the matter, you should try speaking with people. I'm sure they'll learn to leave you alone soon enough.
And of course this is even more relevant in the context of the OP, which is men talking to random women on the street. In that situation you have all the usual "I don't want to be disturbed" issues, and then you add in the fact that some men don't know how to take rejection gracefully
What you are essentially saying is that we should move the harassment laws up to saying "Hello" . There is something seriously wrong with that sort of thought and it dilutes Harassment down from actual cases of it. Speaking to someone on the street in a polite manner is not Harassment, no matter how Asocial you are.
Slarg232 wrote: Dude, in certain circles it's harassment just to LOOK at a woman.
I believe in equal treatment, but I can see why people can't see eye to eye with feminists.....
In your first post, you know you're taking a fringe, extreme subset of a larger movement. You know it, yet you still used that fringe, tiny subset to define everyone else in the movement in the second sentence, anyway.
dogma wrote: So, essentially, no one should ever suggest that they're open to conversation?
Well, there has to be a middle ground between that extreme, and the idea that whenever you see a woman walking by, lost in thought, whatever she's thinking about is less important than someone telling her what an acceptable decoration they find her to be; that speaks to some rather large entitlement issues I think.
Slarg232 wrote: Dude, in certain circles it's harassment just to LOOK at a woman.
I believe in equal treatment, but I can see why people can't see eye to eye with feminists.....
In your first post, you know you're taking a fringe, extreme subset of a larger movement. You know it, yet you still used that fringe, tiny subset to define everyone else in the movement in the second sentence, anyway.
That's because people tend to lump everyone into the same group because of the category. It's the same with any group;
A bunch of people can't stand the Right Wing because of Fox.
A bunch of people can't stand Feminists because of nutjobs.
I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
Some muslims would kill me for who I am and what I do. I don't take that into account when I meet a muslim in the street, or debate with one on a forum.
Slarg232 wrote: Dude, in certain circles it's harassment just to LOOK at a woman.
I believe in equal treatment, but I can see why people can't see eye to eye with feminists.....
In your first post, you know you're taking a fringe, extreme subset of a larger movement. You know it, yet you still used that fringe, tiny subset to define everyone else in the movement in the second sentence, anyway.
That's because people tend to lump everyone into the same group because of the category. It's the same with any group;
A bunch of people can't stand the Right Wing because of Fox.
A bunch of people can't stand Feminists because of nutjobs.
The difference being that Fox doesn't jump around with wildly flaining arms, claiming to be the most objective piece of media there is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
So nutjobs in a nutjob movement would be...regular people? :O
Slarg232 wrote: Dude, in certain circles it's harassment just to LOOK at a woman.
I believe in equal treatment, but I can see why people can't see eye to eye with feminists.....
In your first post, you know you're taking a fringe, extreme subset of a larger movement. You know it, yet you still used that fringe, tiny subset to define everyone else in the movement in the second sentence, anyway.
That's because people tend to lump everyone into the same group because of the category. It's the same with any group;
A bunch of people can't stand the Right Wing because of Fox.
A bunch of people can't stand Feminists because of nutjobs.
The difference being that Fox doesn't jump around with wildly flaining arms, claiming to be the most objective piece of media there is.
Fox DOES claim to be objective, they claim to be the only fair and balanced media there is. Do the fringe nutjobs present themselves as mainstream feminists?
As analogies go, this is somewhere between hitting a easy-out pop fly and swinging, missing, and having the bat fly out of your hands and hit you in the junk.
Ultimately, the problem with folks buying into this is that these are "harassing behaviors"... and it has to do with how differently from women that men are aroused to desire. Once you have convinced yourself that there are no real biological or sociosexual differences between men and women, it’s a small step from there to bemoaning catcalling while your knockers are thrust three feet in front of you. It's this fear and loathing of men because they get turned on by visual stimulus with an intensity that is alien to their worldview.
That's gibberish. What are you trying to say?
That men are aroused differently than women...
And that some men/city/culture express it differently than other men (catcalling).
Ashiraya wrote: I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
Some muslims would kill me for who I am and what I do. I don't take that into account when I meet a muslim in the street, or debate with one on a forum.
I can't speak for everyone, but my college days of dating a feminist were not the most fun I've ever had.
I went to three meetings with her, and each and every time I would get glares just for being a dude. Not to mention how at least half of them (and I don't know what percentage of that exactly were joking around, but it wasn't small) were the type to agree with the idea of castrating all men except the "hot" ones to breed with.
Are you asking me to define what the slogan "fair and balanced" means?
fair1
fer/
adjective
1.
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
"the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"
synonyms: just, equitable, honest, upright, honorable, trustworthy; impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, neutral, even-handed;
bal·anced
ˈbalənst
adjective
keeping or showing a balance; arranged in good proportions.
"she assembled a balanced team"
taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented.
"accurate and balanced information"
synonyms: fair, equitable, just, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, impartial, even-handed, dispassionate
Well, there has to be a middle ground between that extreme, and the idea that whenever you see a woman walking by, lost in thought, whatever she's thinking about is less important than someone telling her what an acceptable decoration they find her to be; that speaks to some rather large entitlement issues I think.
Oh, certainly. The issue is that there is no hard and fast rule governing what that middle ground happens to be. The best we, as a society, have been able to come up with are prohibitions, and even those aren't universal. As an example of prohibition: I think its pretty well accepted that catcalling is bad. So well accepted that the people who do it likely know they are objectifying their target. But catcalling is distinct from trying to strike up a conversation.
Ignoring the biological differences, yeah, that's true; though not necessarily in the way you want it to be. What is titillating has as much to do with society (and experience) as it does with biology.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
Some muslims would kill me for who I am and what I do. I don't take that into account when I meet a muslim in the street, or debate with one on a forum.
Not sure about where you live, but in America, being a feminist and saying "All men are filthy pigs who deserves to die!" is perfectly acceptable in most circumstances. If a Muslim said "All Christians deserve to die!" it would not be tolerated at all.
Also, I don't have a problem with feminists, I actually like what the movement used to be. The problem is nowadays its a pretty even split of normal feminist and crazy mysandric zealot. The same can not be said of Islam, and I'd argue it's more or a 75%/25% split or probably less in terms of normal person and crazy zealot.
Not quite. From what I gather (because I knew the bottom section would explode in bile and negativity) it's in a subway system in London where reception is basically non-existent.
I've regularly sent and received texts in the London and NYC subway systems.
Do you keep your phone aligned with other peoples crotches?
w-w-wait they arent staring at my feet and blushing
Do you keep your phone aligned with other peoples crotches?
I keep my phone in my right, front pocket. I also pull it from there when it vibrates or rings, and generally look down at it while doing anything related to it. This, unsurprisingly, means that it often aligns with other peoples' crotches.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Because people are social creatures, even an introvert like myself desires to enjoy a conversation once in a while with people.
So why not go out and participate in social events where you can get a conversation instead of insisting on meaningless "hi, nice weather today" conversations with people who might be wishing you'd just STFU and go away?
Here's a hint, being out in public forces you to interact with people, people do not walk around in bubbles of no social interaction.
And that's my point: it shouldn't. I acknowledge that right now people feel entitled to bother everyone they see, but this is something that shouldn't happen.
What you are essentially saying is that we should move the harassment laws up to saying "Hello" . There is something seriously wrong with that sort of thought and it dilutes Harassment down from actual cases of it. Speaking to someone on the street in a polite manner is not Harassment, no matter how Asocial you are.
Nice straw man there. I'm not suggesting changing any laws, I'm just saying that it's bad behavior.
Ignoring the biological differences, yeah, that's true; though not necessarily in the way you want it to be. What is titillating has as much to do with society (and experience) as it does with biology.
It's using that event to broadly push an anti-male agenda.
No it isn't, assuming "it" is the original video. It is about women being harassed when walking down the street. Any perception of an "anti-male agenda" is the result of you becoming defensive.
You also didn't answer my question: Did you introduce yourself to your wife by yelling "Nice ass!"?
I'm going to stick my head up here a bit, and no doubt, stick my foot in my mouth.
So, being one of those odd people that like quantifying things. I had a go at approaching this in a semi-haphazard manner. There's 22 incidents in the video, so I decided to try to 'rate' them on a scale of 1-10. The way I sort of approached this was. 1-5 was not what I'd interpret as 'harrassing' behaviour, or anything creepy or particularly uncomfortable, perhaps relatively 'innocent' would be a good phrase? - but then, it is on a scale.
6-10, would be the areas that are not good, in my opinion and would be particularly unawesome. Again, on a scale. 10 being rather bad indeed.
So, there's a possible 220 points available here. My gut instinct was that the video showed a roughly 50/50 innocent/creepy split. But lets see...
"How are you doing today? - Smile - I guess not good. SMILE!"
- See, if it was just the first part, no problem. The demands to start smiling... I can't blame someone for potentially thinking there might be an 'or else' suggestion there. 8
"What's up Beautiful. Have a good day!"
- Yeah, I can see the objectifying argument here, but overall, it's not exactly a bad thing in my view. 3
"Hey, what's up girl? How you doing?"
- A bit random, but to be honest, harmless, in my opinion. 2
"Someone's acknowledging you for being beautiful. You should say thank you more! For real!"
- This guy seemed to be unrelated to the previous guy, so I'm treating it as 2 different things. In any case, this one isn't cool at all. 8
"God bless you mami! Damn!"
- Yup, I'd probably not see it as polite behaviour. Nothing scary though. How about a 6?
"Hey Baby"
- I'd give it a 4.
"Hey Beautiful"
- About a 3.
"How are you this morning?"
- Yeah, this is one of the ones I have issue with. That's a 1, no doubt about it.
"Have a nice evening."
- Also, a bit of an eyeroller. A 1.
"Nice!"
- Come on, really. I'm sure a person would just love that comment. I'm going for a 6.
"Damn. DAMN!"
- I'm giving that a 7.
"Hi Beautiful. God bless."
- I'd probably lower that one to a 2, just for the 'God bless'
"Sexy- American Eagle!"
- Yeah, I don't understand this one to be honest. Lets go for a 6, but I can't blame anyone for rating it higher.
"Hello good morning. God bless you have a good day alright"
- See, the actual words, seem fine and perfectly polite. But following a person for 5 minutes? Seems rather weird. I'm going to put that as a 10, but not for the actual words.
"Damn. How you doing?"
- Not exactly subtle. Lets go for a 6.
"How you doing good, sweetie?"
- A 4-ish I guess.
"Hey look it there! I just saw a thousand dollars."
- I'm going to assume that guy was trying to sell her something, and would say the same or similar thing to anyone. In saying that, I'd find it a bit annoying, but not really harassment. So a 5.
"Damn Girl"
- About a 6?
"You don't wanna talk? Because I'm ugly? Huh? We can't be friends, nothing? You don't speak? If I give you my number, would you talk to me? Too ugly for you?"
- Yeah, this is another 10. Creepy as all heck.
"What's up miss?"
- Seems utterly innocent to me, and quite polite as well. I'd give it a 1.
So, a total of 102, by my count and in my opinion. To conclude from my opinion of it all. The video had a good point to make, with worthy goals. - And there certainly are issues out there with street harrassment. However, the video's production and trying to go for a 'shock' factor of '100 incidents of harassment!!!!!' Is just entirely self defeating and, I think, personally a bit grasping at straws.
If they had redone the video, halved the footage and went along the lines of. "Here are some things that a normal woman has to put up with day by day." And shown the worst ones, I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with the video. Basically, putting in all the "How you doings?" have just entirely diluted the point the video was trying to make and, might very well, have done more harm than good in appealing to getting support from the general male populace.
Compel wrote: If they had redone the video, halved the footage and went along the lines of. "Here are some things that a normal woman has to put up with day by day."
... then it'd be even less useful.
This woman wasn't "harassed". She had a guy follow her for 5 mins, which was weird and not good, and a few people made some rude comments. The rest of it was pretty normal human interaction, even if a bit tasteless in places.
Trying to rate each statement out of context is kind of missing the point. Yes, "hey beautiful" is just tasteless and not explicitly threatening, but think about it from the point of view of the person receiving the "compliment": they have no idea whether you're just going to drop it immediately if they don't respond, or escalate to "Someone's acknowledging you for being beautiful. You should say thank you more! For real!". So even the less-harmful comments can still feel awkward and unwelcome because of that moment of uncertainty about whether this is going to be the creepy or threatening guy instead of the "harmless" guy.
And then you have to consider the selfishness of making the comment in the first place. Even if it isn't "call the police" levels of threatening many (if not most) people don't care about your opinion. So by saying something, even something as mild as "hey beautiful" you're stating that your desire to make someone pay attention to you and hear your opinion is more important than the risk of making them uncomfortable. And that makes even the less-tasteless "compliments" seem a lot more obnoxious.
This extreme-machismo are found in Latino/Blacks sub-cultures.
Again, how is that relevant?
Then explain in this scenario:
Which features an attractive white woman taking a 10-hour walk through predominately white Auckland and having her experience recorded by a friend... in which, the only things that happened is that a few head turns by men as she walks past them.
Bolded the answer. There's nothing wrong with talking to people in contexts where conversation is expected and the person you're talking to appears open to conversation. The issue here is things like expecting every random person walking down the street is just waiting to pay attention to you, even when they've done nothing to even acknowledge that you exist.
Soo.... if I happen to bump into you on the street because we're both walking with our heads fairly well down, and walking quickly with a "purpose", you'd rather I just keep on walkin' than to at least say "excuse me" or "sorry"
Seriously, if all you're saying is "good morning/good afternoon" that in itself isn't even an "offer" for conversation. It's being a pleasant human fething being.
Compel wrote: I"Sexy- American Eagle!"
- Yeah, I don't understand this one to be honest. Lets go for a 6, but I can't blame anyone for rating it higher.
Those are the brand of jeans she is wearing, which are displayed on the label on her rear.
You know what's funny? Sometimes when somebody pretty of the opposite sex is sad i want them to smile. There's sort of an odd feeling like you care more when somebody pretty feels bad. I dunno maybe that's weird. I wouldn't consider telling them to smile to be harassment. I've seen at least a couple people feel bad for pretty people dying or being hurt in tv shows and games even with no other things shown about said characters.
I wish somebody cared if i felt sad. Most people give about zero sh*ts when that happens though perhaps it's just perception.
Looking back there was this guy that approached me as i often looked sad because i am constantly depressed. At the time i thought he was trying to mug me and i was uncomfortable but he was just trying to help me out. That said i'm not always a sociable guy. Maybe i shouldn't have avoided social contact so much (it was just outside a mall).
Also in another case there was a black guy near a white guy that fell out of his chair and his dog. The black guy flagged me down and at first i had an awkward feeling about the situation but i eventually came over there and he wanted help lifting the guy back onto his chair. Eventually we did it with the help of a couple women somewhat. Afterwards we parted ways. Had this happened in a nicer area i probably would've been less freaked out being flagged down.
Anyway point being perhaps it's not a big deal to have social interaction with people you don't know and aren't forced into interaction with via a class or similar but just happen upon each other. I mean one of my longest lasting friendships happened because we struck up a conversation while he was watching monty python. Sure it was awkward for him but he found me to be a cool guy later and we've been friend for about 8 years. Had i never talked to him we never would've known each other.
------------
I'm not sure where peregrine is coming from but what he's saying sounds ridiculous and extreme though maybe i misinterpreted. So you are telling me i couldn't ask a stranger where the bathroom is or ask them for directions. I'll admit social cues with facial expressions and similar are helpful but not everybody gets those. That doesn't make them bad though perhaps bad at social interaction. That's not a crime and it shouldn't be.
It's rather ridiculous the things people are getting mad about these days. You'd think we should next get mad at chairs people sit in and leave before you sit there and have to deal with their residual *ss warmth left on the chair or wet cuffs on your sleeves. It's annoying yes but it isn't such a big deal that i have to broadcast it and say something must be changed.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know what's funny? Sometimes when somebody pretty of the opposite sex is sad i want them to smile. There's sort of an odd feeling like you care more when somebody pretty feels bad. I dunno maybe that's weird. I wouldn't consider telling them to smile to be harassment. I.
1.) Of course, if someone is ugly, you could give a feth less about why they aren't smiling, and
2.) Whatever they are unhappy about is less important than you reminding them they could be a better decoration for you.
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know what's funny? Sometimes when somebody pretty of the opposite sex is sad i want them to smile. There's sort of an odd feeling like you care more when somebody pretty feels bad. I dunno maybe that's weird. I wouldn't consider telling them to smile to be harassment. I've seen at least a couple people feel bad for pretty people dying or being hurt in tv shows and games even with no other things shown about said characters.
You know what the problem with this is? Sometimes when people aren't smiling for a reason. If I just found out that my family all died in a horrible accident I don't give a if someone thinks it would be nice if I was happier, and I'd probably want to punch them in the face if they told me to smile. Essentially what you're saying here is your opinion that it's sad to see a pretty person not smiling is more important than their likely desire to be left alone and not be told to just magically make themselves happy.
I'm not sure where peregrine is coming from but what he's saying sounds ridiculous and extreme though maybe i misinterpreted. So you are telling me i couldn't ask a stranger where the bathroom is or ask them for directions.
Sigh. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between talking to someone for a practical reason (asking where the bathroom is) and talking to someone just to hear yourself talk (whatever meaningless "nice weather today" nonsense you can talk to a random stranger about)?
That's not a crime and it shouldn't be.
And I really don't know where this ridiculous straw man is coming from. My opinion that bothering strangers just to hear yourself talk is bad manners and shouldn't be accepted has nothing to do with what is legal. Nobody is suggesting that you should go to jail for saying "nice weather today", I'm just going to think you're annoying and wish you'd STFU and go away if you insist on bothering me with that kind of "conversation".
flamingkillamajig wrote: You know what's funny? Sometimes when somebody pretty of the opposite sex is sad i want them to smile. There's sort of an odd feeling like you care more when somebody pretty feels bad. I dunno maybe that's weird. I wouldn't consider telling them to smile to be harassment. I've seen at least a couple people feel bad for pretty people dying or being hurt in tv shows and games even with no other things shown about said characters.
You know what the problem with this is? Sometimes when people aren't smiling for a reason. If I just found out that my family all died in a horrible accident I don't give a if someone thinks it would be nice if I was happier, and I'd probably want to punch them in the face if they told me to smile. Essentially what you're saying here is your opinion that it's sad to see a pretty person not smiling is more important than their likely desire to be left alone and not be told to just magically make themselves happy.
I'm not sure where peregrine is coming from but what he's saying sounds ridiculous and extreme though maybe i misinterpreted. So you are telling me i couldn't ask a stranger where the bathroom is or ask them for directions.
Sigh. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between talking to someone for a practical reason (asking where the bathroom is) and talking to someone just to hear yourself talk (whatever meaningless "nice weather today" nonsense you can talk to a random stranger about)?
That's not a crime and it shouldn't be.
And I really don't know where this ridiculous straw man is coming from. My opinion that bothering strangers just to hear yourself talk is bad manners and shouldn't be accepted has nothing to do with what is legal. Nobody is suggesting that you should go to jail for saying "nice weather today", I'm just going to think you're annoying and wish you'd STFU and go away if you insist on bothering me with that kind of "conversation".
Which is funny because when my mom ACTUALLY died i felt all alone in the world and wished somebody else cared. I guess it's different for different people though even if some compare hypothetical to actual situations.
Also what you're saying is somebody telling you to be happy is equal to being punched in the face. You're a rather aggressive person.
I don't understand once again. Sometimes the people that cut my hair talk to me and as i said i've met some people in some places and randomly stroke up a conversation like on a plane for instance. You are sitting next to somebody for 3+ hours. If you're not talking you're probably very bored or sleeping.
If that's the case you should make your feelings known rather than just let them simmer away until they boil over and you punch somebody in the face. Often i hear people say they're being the nice guy by not saying the problem they have with somebody when in the end it usually results in the person repeating a supposed bad behavior they didn't even know bothered you until it was so grating you exploded in their face either with words or violence. If somebody is talking to you and they don't get the message to stop then just tell them politely to stop. After that point if they continue it's rude.
I don't think saying "hey" or "how are you" or anything to that effect counts.
When I worked in a Grocery store, I was taught by my boss to greet everyone that came within 5 feet or so of you with a smile.And I still do that. I don't want to get in your pants, but If I'm walking down the street and someone walks by me, I acknowledge they exist with a "Hey", or a "How's it going" or at least a nod.
A lot of People have worked in a similar place at one point in their lives. And greeting customers just seems like something every store tries to teach every employee they hire. To be fair, I've never been to NYC and at best I might spend a total of 2 weeks a year walking in a larger city, but the whole "he said 'what's up' to me, he wants to sleep with me" thing just seems goofy to me.
The actual catcalls and the dude that was right up on her, that's different.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Which is funny because when my mom ACTUALLY died i felt all alone in the world and wished somebody else cared. I guess it's different for different people though even if some compare hypothetical to actual situations.
Yes, exactly. It's different for different people. So let's look at the pros and cons of telling someone to smile:
+ Makes you feel better knowing that you tried to get rid of that thing you don't like seeing.
+ Person you think is pretty looks prettier if they obey you.
+ Small chance of making the person you're talking to feel better.
- Might make someone who is already unhappy about something even less happy.
- Probably won't accomplish anything because hearing someone say "be happy" doesn't magically make problems go away.
So why exactly is it appropriate to take the chance of making someone unhappy just to satisfy your need to say something, or to treat them like a decoration whose own mood is less important than your desire to see them smile? Isn't that a pretty selfish thing to do?
Also what you're saying is somebody telling you to be happy is equal to being punched in the face. You're a rather aggressive person.
No, I didn't say that the two are equivalent. I said that if I was in the middle of dealing with a horrible tragedy and you told me "smile!" I'd want to punch you in the face. Think about it for a second, you're incredibly unhappy because of something that can't be fixed, and someone just told you "be happy" as if you can magically make that problem go away or your problems are so trivial that all you need to do is just smile a bit more. Can you really not understand how that would inspire some serious anger?
If that's the case you should make your feelings known rather than just let them simmer away until they boil over and you punch somebody in the face.
Sigh. Please go back and read my post. The face-punching thing is in reference to a rather extreme example, not just being slightly annoyed at having to talk to someone who doesn't know when to shut up.
If somebody is talking to you and they don't get the message to stop then just tell them politely to stop. After that point if they continue it's rude.
No, it's rude before that point. Why should the burden of making someone stop annoying me fall on me, instead of them having a burden to avoid annoying me in the first place?
That's one possibility or possibly you're unable to see things outside of your view which seems to state somebody talking to you is always being selfish. It's also rather funny you say it in such a nasty way.
In one case a guy asked for help and seeing the desperation in his eyes and how he was unable to help himself i helped him. I helped because nobody would lift a finger to help him. Is that selfish? In fact i didn't want to help him and only did so because he needed the help and thanked me afterwards. In the case of somebody looking depressed perhaps they do want help. Perhaps you're being selfish thinking your way is the only sensible way to do things when other people may have totally sensible ways that work differently from you and your system.
But hey we're all selfish at some point and it's not always a bad thing. If we weren't selfish at least a little we'd never attend to our wants and needs in a way we desire to the most. Honestly i find it weirder you find supposed selflessness to be selfish. Wouldn't it be more selfish to see somebody looking hurt and sad and not to do something to help ease their pain? Perhaps you don't understand why somebody would want to help somebody else. Perhaps it is a little selfish but big deal as wouldn't it be more selfish to not help somebody. I dunno and i probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.
You shouldn't punch somebody 'telling somebody to smile' in most cases whether their family died or not. It's not like they peed on your family's grave or had something to do with it. At most you could yell at them but punching is extreme.
How do they know it's rude unless they believe exactly the way you think?
-----------
Anyway i see this moving on to an argument and i'm rather not in the mood for it which is why i normally stay out of off-topic threads. I guess i started it though. Either way i'm done.
Ashiraya wrote: I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
Some muslims would kill me for who I am and what I do. I don't take that into account when I meet a muslim in the street, or debate with one on a forum.
Not sure about where you live, but in America, being a feminist and saying "All men are filthy pigs who deserves to die!" is perfectly acceptable in most circumstances. If a Muslim said "All Christians deserve to die!" it would not be tolerated at all.
Also, I don't have a problem with feminists, I actually like what the movement used to be. The problem is nowadays its a pretty even split of normal feminist and crazy mysandric zealot. The same can not be said of Islam, and I'd argue it's more or a 75%/25% split or probably less in terms of normal person and crazy zealot.
If that is true, then I suspect it is something to do with nations.
I have been an LGBT activist and active feminist for ages, and I have never seen any 'nutjob'-type feminists in real life. In fact, 95% of the times I've seen those 'nutjobs' be mentioned at all have been on Dakka...
Ashiraya wrote: I don't get why people single out feminism for that. All large movements have nutjobs.
Some muslims would kill me for who I am and what I do. I don't take that into account when I meet a muslim in the street, or debate with one on a forum.
flamingkillamajig wrote: IWouldn't it be more selfish to see somebody looking hurt and sad and not to do something to help ease their pain?
And the point you keep missing is that telling someone to smile is not helping. At best it's a meaningless statement since "just be happy" isn't a magic solution unless your problems are incredibly superficial, and at worst it's a completely unnecessary poke at someone who is already vulnerable and unhappy. It's very likely that the person you're saying it to is going to feel like you're dismissing their bad mood as something they can just decide to stop worrying about, or reminding them about the social obligation to keep your problems to yourself and how they're failing to put up the required appearance of being happy. And it's pretty arrogant of you to decide that your desire to "help" is more important than the risk of your "help" actually making things worse.
Also, as Ouze pointed out, it says a lot that you specifically mentioned saying this to pretty members of the opposite sex. That isn't genuine concern for your fellow humans, it's a selfish desire to make your objects of interest be more attractive to you.
Ashiraya wrote: I have been an LGBT activist and active feminist for ages, and I have never seen any 'nutjob'-type feminist in real life. In fact, 95% of the times I've seen those 'nutjobs' be mentioned at all have been on Dakka...
Confirming this. The only time I've seen these "extremist" feminists has been when someone online posted a link to them to laugh about how stupid they are.
Nope, because I don't *fit* in the usual stereotype that participates in catcalling.
And what stereotype is that?
Catcalling is one of those male mating dances that appears to be mostly race/culture-specific... that is, old school italians, inner-city blacks and latinos love it, and their women might very well enjoy it and even occasionally reward it. These guys will also catcall white women, but mostly because they don’t understand that white women generally don’t vibe with that style of machismo.
In fact, I remember reading this big ass study about this a couple of years ago that this is predominately a latino thing now (Central/South American)... it's title was something like "The dying art of seduction" or some crap like that.
Besides, the original video's methodology seems very suspect.
Well...if a video is taken in a specific place, at a specific time, with specific clothing and a specific route, then how much of this is actually representative?
I think the entire offensive thing about the video is that for any person, someone trying too hard to get your attention is off-putting.
Nothing makes you more uncomfortable (or make your "skin crawl") when there is this hint of desperation to get into your "space".
"No communication" is rather cold and I dare say cowardice in dealing with others.
A kind word with a laid-back attitude should only elevate a day not detract.
Now, the exception is to at least be aware of clues of those not being receptive to unsolicited conversation.
I already went through the clothing elements, eyes straight ahead and a frown would be a bit of a warning.
Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
"Smile" as a demand, "say thank-you" as a demand, pressure out of guilt to like an "ugly" guy, yes, there was some harassment.
I guess the other means of communication would depend on the recipient of how intimidated they feel.
All you can do as an individual is try to figure out how to "reward" behavior you like, discourage behavior you do not and how to convey to others your wishes visibly.
We have laws to deal with the extreme elements of harassment, the rest is up to you on how to deal with it: take an active role and stop the griping for a magic fix.
Ashiraya wrote: I have been an LGBT activist and active feminist for ages, and I have never seen any 'nutjob'-type feminist in real life. In fact, 95% of the times I've seen those 'nutjobs' be mentioned at all have been on Dakka...
Confirming this. The only time I've seen these "extremist" feminists has been when someone online posted a link to them to laugh about how stupid they are.
Good thing that both of your personal experiences posted on dakka are totally legit, while everyone elses experiences posted on dakka is not worth listening too.... good thing we can assume you two tell the truth, and assume the other people on dakka saying the opposite are just liars i guess.
Plenty of people who have actually attended various feminist functions do see this stuff all the time,
There were *multiple* videos posted showing societies reaction to men being physically abused in public, and having their drinks poisoned, with reactions vs when it was done to men and vs women, the men were left to be beaten and poisoned, the women were assisted. there were also multiple videos of men suffering the same street attention as women.
Next youll say all those vids where men are the victim, are just calling out the fringe examples, and can be safely ignored.
Our culture wont protect its men, it will protect its women and even keep laws that favor women on the books, yet somehow, society is women hating as a whole.
For some reason we should care about women receiving attention on the streets, but not men receiving attention on the streets.
spoilered for size of pic for video preview
Spoiler:
1 minute in, statement of purpose to improve humanity via castration.
easysauce wrote: Plenty of people who have actually attended various feminist functions do see this stuff all the time,
Ashiraya wrote: I have been an LGBT activist and active feminist for ages
Implying I am lying, are you?
Perhaps this is something mostly specific to the US? I mean, no matter how much you swipe away mine and Peregrine's experiences as anecdotes, I still find it difficult to believe that this 'nutjob feminist' stereotype has any notable root in reality when I have never spotted one. And during my today 18 years of life, I have been involved in feminist/LGBT organisations in Germany, Estonia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England and Switzerland. Hell, I did not even find any such crazies in Morocco or Egypt (but then, I did not manage to find many feminist organisations at all there as I was short on time).
You can link a video of 1 person rambling nonsense, which proves absolutely nothing as it may as well just be attention-seeking. (Wait, wasn't that what people used to dismiss Sarkeesian? )
I am not denying that crazy feminists exist, because they probably do, and I am sure they make a disproportional amount of noise thanks to the internet, but I do not think they are common enough to really acknowledge here when no one is making any 'castrate all men' arguments.
I only met a few avowed ranty feminists - all in the same class in law school. Thats the closest I came to women's studies, and there were some interesting people in that class.
Similarly I've not met any "Men's RIghts Advocates" who weren't attorneys representing men in divorces.
Catcalling is one of those male mating dances that appears to be mostly race/culture-specific... that is, old school italians, inner-city blacks and latinos love it, and their women might very well enjoy it and even occasionally reward it. These guys will also catcall white women, but mostly because they don’t understand that white women generally don’t vibe with that style of machismo.
That last sentence is incredibly racist.
That aside, I think we can agree that catcalling is bad and that the cultures which accept it tend to exhibit less than ideal behavior with respect to women.
99% of actual feminists you will meet in real life are awesome and normal people who simply have more insight into a specific matter or invest more time in it.
The internet, as usual, just bloats a vocal minority up and servers as a stage for attention beggars like Anita who don't do anything for the cause at hand but are just out for attention and money. Yet it's those people a lot of people will think of when hearing the word "feminist".
As usual - just keep in mind that this is the internet, shut off the computer, go outside and talk to any feminist out there if you're interested in it.
easysauce wrote: Plenty of people who have actually attended various feminist functions do see this stuff all the time,
Ashiraya wrote: I have been an LGBT activist and active feminist for ages
Implying I am lying, are you?s.
not at all,
what I am actually saying, is that since you say other posters experiences dont count, then your own experiences can be called out as such as well.
Where did I say this?
You may be referring to me being doubtful of your arguments regarding 'feminist nutjobs' but that is purely because I have never seen anything of the like myself (which is why I suggested it may be something specific to US).
Catcalling is one of those male mating dances that appears to be mostly race/culture-specific... that is, old school italians, inner-city blacks and latinos love it, and their women might very well enjoy it and even occasionally reward it. These guys will also catcall white women, but mostly because they don’t understand that white women generally don’t vibe with that style of machismo.
That last sentence is incredibly racist.
That aside, I think we can agree that catcalling is bad and that the cultures which accept it tend to exhibit less than ideal behavior with respect to women.
Didn't you just say the same thing, that there are different cultures that do this?
You can link a video of 1 person rambling nonsense, which proves absolutely nothing as it may as well just be attention-seeking. (Wait, wasn't that what people used to dismiss Sarkeesian? )
I am not denying that crazy feminists exist, because they probably do, and I am sure they make a disproportional amount of noise thanks to the internet, but I do not think they are common enough to really acknowledge here when no one is making any 'castrate all men' arguments.
OK, then all the feminist videos are also just people rambling nonsense, and all those videos that show men in negative lights, are also disproportional because of the internet.
great, that means videos from both sides can all be ignored totally!
crazy feminists dont have the #s to matter, well, neither do chauvinists!
people brought up that what they actually saw in their experience was a large # of extremist feminists, you countered by saying your experience was the opposite.
not to mention that random rambler whos opinion you dismissed so out of hand has just as much credibility as sarkeesian, and gets just as many death threats.
I am aware they exist but I see no reason to acknowledge them in a common debate as I am fairly sure there's already a consensus on them here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: people brought up that what they actually saw in their experience was a large # of extremist feminists, you countered by saying your experience was the opposite.
And for the third time I ask, is this possibly a thing specific to the US?
Who has actually met a passel of extreme feminists in person? Define extreme feminist first.
I'll proffer an extreme feminist hates your guts. An exteme "Masculinist" will throw acid on your face for being outside without proper covering and will shoot you in the head if you have the temority to want to go to school.
I am aware they exist but I see no reason to acknowledge them in a common debate as I am fairly sure there's already a consensus on them here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: people brought up that what they actually saw in their experience was a large # of extremist feminists, you countered by saying your experience was the opposite.
And for the third time I ask, is this possibly a thing specific to the US?
im not from the states,
I do notice a substantial amount of feminists in my country are extremist, perhaps its different here then your country.
Frazzled wrote: Who has actually met a passel of extreme feminists in person? Define extreme feminist first.
I'll proffer an extreme feminist hates your guts. An exteme "Masculinist" will throw acid on your face for being outside without proper covering and will shoot you in the head if you have the temority to want to go to school.
feminism is supposed to be about EQUALITY between both sexes so a feminist who only focuses on womans issues, and ignores mens issues, is on the extreme end.
IE a feminist who speaks out against street attention directed at women, but wont speak out against the same directed at men, is extremist due to the hypocrisy of how this feminist is applying the stated ideology, vs the ACTUAL practice of that ideology.
This kind of disconnect is extremist in nature as it is allowing for victimization of the them but not the us.
frazz, did you miss the video that showed, that right in America, men can be beaten in public by women, and poisoned, and not have anyone care, while women receive help when the situation is reversed. Your acid throwing example is religion based, not gender, not really fair... I could bring up tribes where the women wont take male mates until after extensive genital mutilation, but neither my nor your example would be indicative of modern cultures as a whole.
feminism is supposed to be about EQUALITY between both sexes
Who appointed you the judge of what a movement is supposed to be about?
so a feminist who only focuses on womans issues, and ignores mens issues, is on the extreme end.
Or they're just an advocate like every other advicate and every freaking lawyer in North America. Thats pretty broad. Every lawyer is extreme? Every contract negotiator is extreme?
How do you define those WHO KILL women for not doing what they want?
This is a real extremist.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/19/isis-forced-marriage-syria-iraq-women-kidnapped
[quoteIE a feminist who speaks out against street attention directed at women, but wont speak out against the same directed at men, is extremist due to the hypocrisy of how this feminist is applying the stated ideology, vs the ACTUAL practice of that ideology.
Nope not at all. They're just protesting for their group. Does every protestor ever have to protest for all sides?
This kind of disconnect is extremist in nature as it is allowing for victimization of the them but not the us.
You don't seem to know what a feminist is.
frazz, did you miss the video that showed, that right in America, men can be beaten in public by women, and poisoned, and not have anyone care, while women receive help when the situation is reversed. Your acid throwing example is religion based, not gender, not really fair... I could bring up tribes where the women wont take male mates until after extensive genital mutilation, but neither my nor your example would be indicative of modern cultures as a whole
.
Thats an excuse. Its violence against women, not men - just women. Did you miss the videos where women were killed by the taliban in a sports stadium for wearing fingernail polish? THATS extremism.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And again, how many of these advocates have you met in real life? What proof do you have thye were such?
you would be correct frazzled, IF feminists were not themselves making the claim to be working towards equality for both genders,
Any time I bring up that feminists are only working for females, and that what we need are more humanists rather then feminists, i get told that feminism is working for equality for both genders so humanist is not needed... it seems like feminist get insulted by my suggestions that they only work for female equality.
sohey state directly that both genders equality is their goal,
so its acceptable to hold them to it.
If the feminist groups go back to stating its just about women, then you would be correct.
Plenty of men get killed for being men, no one cares... again, brining up specific religious based examples like ISIS in syria when we are talking about street attention in the states is a bit off..
yes its horrible what happened in syria, woman shouldnt be killed for being women.
I can easily bring up that its legal, acceptable, for men to be forced against their will to kill and die in wars, at least the actions in syria are illegal in most countries.
again, those are religious examples from extremist groups, withing extremist countries
their action are not widely accepted by anyone outside of their own groups,
conversely, the things against men are very much accepted and perpetuated in popular, modern, LOCAL cultures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: @easy: That isn't extremism, that's bias.
someone who practices certain teachings to the detriment of others, IE westboro and frazzs examples, is extremist because they take a part of the religion or movement, and focus ONLY on that part.
IE they take one part and go to the extreme with it.
in the same way, if the feminist movement claims it is actually about equality for all, but the actual practiced focus is on women alone, then they have taken one part and gone to the extreme with it.
it is ALSO a bias, no argument there.
It would be simple enough to simply acknowledge that the movement is in fact, not about mens rights at all, but the claim that feminism actively works for men keeps getting made.
you would be correct frazzled, IF feminists were not themselves making the claim to be working towards equality for both genders,
You’re lumping the whole group as one. I’m sure if I had taken logic I’d be pointing out a fallacy here.
But assuming you’re correct, that’s not extremism, that’s subterfuge. I like subterfuge Doesn’t compare with cutting off heads and gak.
Any time I bring up that feminists are only working for females, and that what we need are more humanists rather then feminists, i get told that feminism is working for equality for both genders so humanist is not needed... it seems like feminist get insulted by my suggestions that they only work for female equality.
I’m not making the claim. I will accept it on its face. That’s not extremism. That’s advocacy.
sohey state directly that both genders equality is their goal,
so its acceptable to hold them to it.
Again this whole “they” thing.
If the feminist groups go back to stating its just about women, then you would be correct.
And that makes them un-extremist?
Plenty of men get killed for being men,
Really? When?
no one cares... again, brining up specific religious based examples like ISIS in syria when we are talking about street attention in the states is a bit off.. [/quoite]
Religion is just pretext. There’s nothing in Kuran about any of that. Crazies only need a pretext. Again, an extremist feminist is not out there cutting of men’s…heads and gak.
yes its horrible what happened in syria, woman shouldnt be killed for being women.
So you agree that’s the REAL face of an extremist.
I can easily bring up that its legal, acceptable, for men to be forced against their will to kill and die in wars, at least the actions in syria are illegal in most countries.
Yep. Of course, women always bear the b runt of losing said wars.
again, those are religious examples from extremist groups, withing extremist countries
Extremist is extremist. You’re just playing the statistics game now of adjusting your market or field of study to make it what you want the results to be. Sorry you don’t get to do that.
{quote]their action are not widely accepted by anyone outside of their own groups,
Irrelevant. That’s what a real extremist is, not some university hothouse flower who couldn’t offend her way out of a paper bag outside of a university.
{quote]conversely, the things against men are very much accepted and perpetuated in popular, modern, LOCAL cultures.
Like what? War is the only thing you’ve been able to bring up. Hey if it weren’t for the men shooting things, men wouldn’t be dying from it now would they. Lots of women and children die in war, the majority actually.
It would be simple enough to simply acknowledge that the movement is in fact, not about mens rights at all, but the claim that feminism actively works for men keeps getting made.
I've heard it been made but never as any sort of primary purpose just as an aside. As in a "and also men too may benefit by..."
I believe, here in the UK, there's been some progress being made about getting companies to consider extending paternity leave, by sharing it more with the partners maternity leave, in order to get women back to work.
Do you think it is acceptable to treat people like that?
Im noticing a distinct lack of answering that same question when posed to yourself.
Is it ok to talk to men in the street? yes no?
how about the other ways we treat men i listed, are those acceptable to you? yes no?
spoilered for language
Spoiler:
when a woman is attacked by a guy, people jump in to help her,
in the reverse
this happens
when a man spikes a womans drink, people jump in to help her
in reverse
so you think this is acceptable behavior killkrazy? or at least, so un important that having people say "hi beautiful" on the street is more important?
I dont hear feminists *ever* talk about these inequalities despite the movement supposedly being about equality.
This video and this thread are about sexist harassment of women. It's irrelevant what anyone says or thinks about other topics.
Why don't you first condemn such behaviour, then ask others to condemn similar behaviour towards men?
Apparently you think that because I haven't condemned sexist harassment of men, sexist harassment of women is acceptable.
This video and this thread are about sexist harassment of women. It's irrelevant what anyone says or thinks about other topics.
Why don't you first condemn such behaviour, then ask others to condemn similar behaviour towards men?
Apparently you think that because I haven't condemned sexist harassment of men, sexist harassment of women is acceptable.
So, in a thread about a video that alleges harassment of women, any talk about how its not harassment to say hi to people isnt allowed, and is in fact *irrelevant* in your own words.
got it, dissenting opinions even when backed by facts or comparable situations where the reverse happens, are not allowed...
just further proves the point,
post a video when people say hi to a woman, thats harassment of women.
post a video where people say hi to a man, thats totally irrelevant, you can only talk about how women are harassed.
post a video that shows society accepting violence towards women, great! more proof that society sucks!
post a video that shows society accepting violence towards men, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
its a very one sided conversation at that point when you say the rules are *any evidence to the contrary is unwelcome and irrelevant
so if a thread gets started about how creationism is totally legit, no one can post in that thread with opposing opinions i guess...
You’re lumping the whole group as one. I’m sure if I had taken logic I’d be pointing out a fallacy here.
Composition fallacy or, if you want to be noncommittal, false generalization.
Tada!
People now know what to do now!
do not lump a bunch of people together.
Women are harassed, men are harassed.
We are bloody human beings we oppress everyone no matter what we do. For every positive there is a negative, for every negative is a positive.
Wrong = a Right, right = wrong.
Basically the theory is that there is always negative or postitive things that happen when you do something either negative or postitive.
Human beings in general will come to the aide of a woman, but not of a man, because we expect men to be strong. WE have the preception that men are strong and do not need help. The stereotype for men is that they never ask for directions. Guess what I do? I ask for direction. I do not go off by myself in a place I don't know. That is nonsensical, I was actually told that I am not like most men. And I replied. "Some are, some aren't."
The problem is that people forget that each case should be looked at by a case by case basis. Some here are being harassed report that, that person said hi, thats not harassment. Etc etc.
WE can't treat everything that is direct at someone as harassment due to the insanity that details.
easysauce wrote: Our culture wont protect its men, it will protect its women and even keep laws that favor women on the books, yet somehow, society is women hating as a whole.
Funny how from a survival / reproduction point of view men are rather disposable.
"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basis is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying." - Robert A. Heinlein
It is a given that the primary prejudice in our society toward women is that they are in need of protection.
The primary means of aggression that can happen toward women is assumed to come from men.
I have seen circumstances where when a woman chooses to be the aggressor in "polite society" invariably the man will lose.
I'm a strong supporter of men's rights and women's rights. Both get their fair share of harassment and unequal treatment based on stereotypes. We as people tend to make assumptions. It's in our nature and not going to change any time soon. As unfortunate as it is... however, catcalling is less of a poisonous outcome of our assumption based discrimination.
Personally, catcalling is not harmful in anyway unless someone is physically harming me or using words like "Hey, you stupid whore, come sit on my dick" or something of that type.
This is just my selfish, one sided perspective and mine alone. I wouldn't feel shamed or hurt by any of those comments. My confidence might even be boosted. We are after all attention seeking creatures whether you like to admit to it or not.
I've noticed that whenever this subject comes up, a lot of men get really defensive about it. It really makes me lose hope for the future, because it seems like the majority of men either don't care or actively resist the idea that there might be something wrong.
I think it's just very difficult for men to relate to women on this issue, because men generally aren't coveted in the same way -- it's a completely alien concept. For a men, loads of women trying to sleep with him all the time sounds like a dream come true. But it isn't like that because women aren't men. Imagine having to walk around a prison all day long with lots of 250lbs guys trying to be your "friend", see how comfortable you are with it then. See if you really feel good about guys buying you "presents". See if you really believe Bubba is interested in you for your personality. That's a more accurate analogy, and it's terrifying.
The number of women I know (girls who I grew up with) who have been raped is disturbing and abhorrent -- and those are just the ones I've been told about. It seems like every woman can tell a story. Though sadly, the best way for a women to not get harassed is to stand next to a man, which unfortunately is why so many men are oblivious to what goes on when she's alone.
I think the real joke is men saying that women are overreacting, and going on about "crazy misandrist feminists". As much as I hate to generalize, men are much more prone to the violent type of overreaction than women are (bombs, genocide etc...), if men experienced half the gak that women put up with on a daily basis then they would be the most extreme, crazy, man-hating, bitches ever. I think I've lost count of all the times I've heard men blurt out phrases like "put them all on an island" or "bullet in the head" when discussing people they don't like. In comparison I think women take it on the chin quite well. Men really need to shut up about that.
Smacks wrote: I've noticed that whenever this subject comes up, a lot of men get really defensive about it. It really makes me lose hope for the future, because it seems like the majority of men either don't care or actively resist the idea that there might be something wrong.
I think it's just very difficult for men to relate to women on this issue, because men generally aren't coveted in the same way -- it's a completely alien concept. For a men, loads of women trying to sleep with him all the time sounds like a dream come true. But it isn't like that because women aren't men. Imagine having to walk around a prison all day long with lots of 250lbs guys trying to be your "friend", see how comfortable you are with it then. See if you really feel good about guys buying you "presents". See if you really believe Bubba is interested in you for your personality. That's a more accurate analogy, and it's terrifying.
The number of women I know (girls who I grew up with) who have been raped is disturbing and abhorrent -- and those are just the ones I've been told about. It seems like every woman can tell a story. Though sadly, the best way for a women to not get harassed is to stand next to a man, which unfortunately is why so many men are oblivious to what goes on when she's alone.
I think the real joke is men saying that women are overreacting, and going on about "crazy misandrist feminists". As much as I hate to generalize, men are much more prone to the violent type of overreaction than women are (bombs, genocide etc...), if men experienced half the gak that women put up with on a daily basis then they would be the most extreme, crazy, man-hating, bitches ever. I think I've lost count of all the times I've heard men blurt out phrases like "put them all on an island" or "bullet in the head" when discussing people they don't like. In comparison I think women take it on the chin quite well. Men really need to shut up about that.
Have you read my discussion on the topic.
I disagree with feminists on certain issues and this is the only one I disagree with. They inflate facts and distort things. That is what they are known for.
They say we live a rape culture. They put out this ridicilous numbers with very little evidence and take the facts already given and inflating them to ridiculous numbers.
There are some instances of them being right. And when I do I tip my hat to them. But most times it is a distorted to fit a certain narrative.
I disagree with the fact that men are more likely to do something stupid. I know some women that are more cruel than I am. When a girl is angry at you, they go for the throat without a second questioning. They know how to hit men. And this is just my experience with rich white girls so maybe my opinion is moot. Some of them waited a year or so, and then struck. They have time. They know what to do.
I mean I am hit on all the time. I am a guy, I am cat called and I don't like it. But I know not to be hyper senstive and to strike out at people.
IF someone says hi. I say hi back, even if I don't find them attractive. Because I am not a judgmental jerk.I understand in this day and age it is actually hard to not be a white man. But the fact is that you cannot ignore the experience of one.
I feel like the issue though is that we are taught since we are children not to treat everyone equally, but we are told. "I am special, YOU ARE SPECIAL!"
Instead of "We are special, regardless of color or gender."
I remember reading a study where children carry some of their biases till they are older. Or maybe my memory is fading. But it stated that children could possibly be disposed into that thinking from their parents. My parents are... not very kind to certain types of people. And are extremely judgemental.
But I do agree and hopefully someone does as well. Men are raped too, the only reason we don't hear about it is because of one reason. Who the hell would believe that? It sounds ridiculous!
I do also agree that women are probably raped more then men. That is a definite fact. But saying that x percentage of y are more likely to be raped is... misinformed. The thing is that those numbers mean very little. Instead it should be thought about. Where are you most likely to get attacked or raped. If you give that out there is more likely a chance that you will be raped. Basically areas where there is more raped reported. Like school campuses, in this certain area of new york. Stay away from there. Teach women that to defend themselves. Teach women how to kick ass. Teach women to stay away from certain areas. Travel in packs. Ensure that you do not go somewhere and buy a drink from a stranger. There should be more steps taken to prevent it. But we cannot punish every single man on the planet and generalize. Because that is damning a large group of people.
(Rapists in my opinion, I think there punishment should be if they brag about it, sterilization, if they abused her, held her or him against their will, drugged her, I think sterilization is the only way to go in that case. Get them out of the genepool. But I think there needs to be more burden of proof, and more narrowing down of the meaning of rape, as sadly some people do make false rape accusations, they do exist and to say I am being sexist for saying they do indeed exist, I suggest you leave and read up on it, as it does exist, but they are uncommon. I do not think false ones occur. I like to think so, but they do happen.)
But thats just me. If they regret it and actually do something more than apologize. IE join the military in complete regret. Or give rapists a choice, jail + sterlization, 'community' work, or service to the country.
house crazy, but it takes a special kind of crazy to voluntarily join the flaming redhead brigade."
.
