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.

 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.

No kidding. Plus we all avoid certain places in cities.

 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:
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.

OP asked: How do we stop this behavior?

The thread proves that the only way to stop this behavior is to kill all humans!

 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

 Easy E wrote:
OP asked: How do we stop this behavior?

The thread proves that the only way to stop this behavior is to kill all humans!

Well in regards to stopping it, you teach manners and respect. Obviously some people, say 1%, aren't going to learn that lesson.

I don't think donating money to them is going to stop people from being a-holes.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 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?

Like what exactly.

"Nice ass" and "I could eat that all day and nighttime, too" are not derisive or expressions of disapproval. Quite the opposite in fact...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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




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 answer killkrazy: i think it is perfectly fine to compiment or greet a woman.

Heh...

Did I just watch 8 minutes of dick cam?

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Do you think it is acceptable to treat people like that?

In order to have an actual discussion, it might help to fill empty words like "that" with content. Right now, nobody knows what you're talking of.

Or you might just be interested in provoking other users. Which I certainly do not hope.

whembly wrote:Heh...

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?

SMILE! You're on Crotchen Camera!

 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!

Don't you mean #KillAllMen?

 Slarg232 wrote:

Also, turns out women are people too.

Not true, people don't have cooties.

 Slarg232 wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

Also, turns out women are people too.

Not true, people don't have cooties.

 Slarg232 wrote:

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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".

 StarTrotter wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

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?)

nomotog wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh...

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?)

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.