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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

 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.

That's gibberish. What are you trying to say?

 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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

He doesn't, and don't you dare talk to him!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

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?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Speaking to someone on the street in a polite manner is not Harassment, no matter how asocial you are.

It creeps me out that this has to be explicitely stated.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Speaking to someone on the street in a polite manner is not Harassment, no matter how anti-social you are.

It creeps me out that this has to be explicitely stated.

Whoops, meant Asocial in there, had mixed up my terms on the matter.

But yes that is rather horrific to think of.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Speaking to someone on the street in a polite manner is not Harassment, no matter how asocial you are.

It creeps me out that this has to be explicitely stated.

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.....

 Slarg232 wrote:


I believe in equal treatment, but I can see why people can't see eye to eye with feminists.....

Especially when they're wearing low cut tops!

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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:

 Ouze wrote:

 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

 Sigvatr wrote:

So nutjobs in a nutjob movement would be...regular people? :O

Well, I know of certain political parties...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

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).

This original video is a farce.

 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.

 Ouze wrote:


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

Please do refer me to where Fox claims to speak for the objective part of media.

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

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


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

Please do refer me to where Fox claims to speak for the objective part of media.

Have you ever actually watched them?

Like, EVER?!?

They picked a particularly bad neighbourhood to do the experiment. One area isn't a microcosm for the rest of the country or planet. Here's one where they do the same experiment in new zealand: http://www.buzzfeed.com/abagg/a-woman-did-the-same-catcall-experiment-in-new-zealand-and-n?

Also, they did one with a male, (which has probably already posted) and he received just as much cat calling.

Furthermore, the video was proved to have been cutting out white male responses and the creators have been called out for purposely being racist. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/03/we-dont-need-a-law-against-catcalling/

 Ouze wrote:

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.

10 hours of walking to get 2 minutes of footage of men saying Hello. What a terrible world these beautiful middle class white girls must live in.

 whembly wrote:

That men are aroused differently than women...

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.

 whembly wrote:

And that some men/city/culture express it differently than other men (catcalling).

If I remember correctly, you're married. Did you introduce yourself to your wife by yelling "Nice ass!"?

 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.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Do you keep your phone aligned with other peoples crotches?

w-w-wait they arent staring at my feet and blushing