Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Truly, being beautiful is such a burdensome thing.

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").

 Ouze wrote:

 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 don't think it's unreasonable when calling something fake, to be asked to show your work.

It's a popular tactic in some quarters to throw out FUD under the guise of "just asking questions".

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.

...
Think I'll avoid another mod action...

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.

Context and location means everything.

 Frazzled wrote:
Context and location means everything.

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.

 easysauce wrote:

 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.

not really steamdragon...

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.

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Context and location means everything.

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...

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

man dressed in drag walks through la.

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Context and location means everything.

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

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Context and location means everything.

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.

 easysauce wrote:

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.

 Easy E wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Context and location means everything.

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:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 streamdragon wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

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."

 easysauce wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

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.

steam,

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.