How do you help stop this type of harassing behavior?

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

Are those men talking to a women in public?

Such harassment. Much Peregrine. Wow.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Of all the men who walked on by and didn't help her, I wonder many were thinking...

" gak a drunk woman, better avoid her or I might get accused of sexual harassment! "

**whembly**

**Psienesis**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sadly no. That was a woman explaining that 1-in-5 figure, so that can't be mansplaining. What that is is "internalised misogyny".

You need to learn your snazzy gender-based ad hominems. Life's easier with them (unless you live under the thumb of the heteronormative Patriarchy, in which case life is always hard).

It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank". One of its senior members is considered to be the founder of neoconservativism. Its sources are suspect, and its defense against counter-claims that indicate that other research has, so far, supported the 1-in-5 claim is dubious (not to mention weak). They have not, themselves, provided their own research on the subject. Throughout the early 2000s, they were the think-tank that basically supported the Bush plan (and they claim that the Bush tax cuts, which they supported, saved the economy from the recession that began during his tenure... this claim is dubious, at best).

The speaker in the video would posit that "attempted forced kissing" does not constitute assault. How she comes about this definition, frankly, escapes me. To me, it falls into the same neo-con definition of "not a real rape" that was making airtime a few years ago, which is to say that the point of the piece was to discredit the findings of the report, and then work backwards from the conclusion to find ways to discredit it, rather than start out with an examination of the data and reach an objective counter.

**Pyeatt**

Frazzled wrote:
Ok, as a Dad/husband, saw this and thought - 1. jeez thats crazy; 2. yes this reinforces every opinion I have about NY.

The video depicts a woman walking in NY for 10 hours and being constantly verbally harassed and catacalled.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/01/360494480/woman-in-street-harassment-video-i-do-not-feel-safe-right-now

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?

Half of the people in the video only gave her a proper greeting, such as the time of day. So what they're saying is... Dont talk to women at all, because feminazis will get offended by you saying "Good evening" politely.

**H.B.M.C.**

Psienesis wrote:
It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank".

FAIL!

A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".

So try again, and this time without the genetic fallacy.

**Goliath**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
It's actually an AEI piece, which is a conservative-leaning "think tank".

FAIL!

A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".

So try again, and this time without the genetic fallacy.

You mean like the rest of his post that you didn't at all address? There's also the fact that even if she is a registered Democrat, that doesn't preclude the organisation she works for from having any influence on her work, it just means that she's a registered democrat that works for a conservative thinktank.

**H.B.M.C.**

I stopped reading his post when he attempted to dismiss the video with a genetic fallacy.

Looking at it now I can see he's talking about Bush, and studies supporting tax cuts, and so on. Red herrings, essentially. So, if he (or you, feel free to join the fun!) want to address the video with something more than "But... but... conservatives!!!", then by all means go right ahead.

**Ouze**

Today I learned the phrase "genetic fallacy".

**Ensis Ferrae**

Pyeatt wrote:

Half of the people in the video only gave her a proper greeting, such as the time of day. So what they're saying is... Dont talk to women at all, because feminazis will get offended by you saying "Good evening" politely.

Don't you know? Evening and Morning are oppressive words founded by the Evil Patriarchy.

**Goliath**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I stopped reading his post when he attempted to dismiss the video with a genetic fallacy.

Looking at it now I can see he's talking about Bush, and studies supporting tax cuts, and so on. Red herrings, essentially. So, if he (or you, feel free to join the fun!) want to address the video with something more than "But... but... conservatives!!!", then by all means go right ahead.

Well for one, the point regarding their history with research studies is relevant, as if they do attempt to claim things regarding tax hikes counter to evidence, then that throws the quality of anything published by them into doubt.

For another, you're doing exactly what you moan about Peregrine supposedly doing; reading part of a post, realising that you disagree with it and so dismissing the rest of it as useless.

The point regarding the definition of sexual assault that Pseinesis made seemed relevant to me, in that Ms Sommers makes points about "real" sexual assault by dismissing drunken/drugged incidents, as if it is impossible for someone to be sexually assaulted whilst drunk, as well as her point regarding "forced kissing" and how those data points can be ignored, when the category also included forced touching and groping, which most people would agree is sexual assault.

Basically, she keeps on making broad statements about a single aspect of a data set in order to dismiss the entire section, when it has other aspects; a trend among those videos of hers that I have seen. She also did it in her catcalling video by dismissing it all as just homeless people harassing rich female lawyers, when that obviously isn't the entirety of the problem, only in this case she does it more subtly.

**Bullockist**

Ouze wrote:
Today I learned the phrase "genetic fallacy".

I take it this isa reference genetic makeup that supposedly makes men superior to women? I've read genetic fallacy about 8 times now and still have no idea what it means.

**Smacks**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I stopped reading his post when he attempted to dismiss the video with a genetic fallacy.

I stopped reading your post when you attempted to dismiss his post with the fallacy-fallacy

**Bromsy**

Ouze wrote:
Today I learned the phrase "genetic fallacy".

It's not as much fun as "genetic opera".

Spoiler:

**Jehan-reznor**

Ouze wrote:
Today I learned the phrase "genetic fallacy".

Or is this "Harassment" a genetic phallusy?

**VorpalBunny74**

Psienesis wrote:
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.

That's a fething *huge* number of people!

Source please

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.

That's a fething *huge* number of people!
Source please

Didn't Sommers address that claim, and totally discredit the source?

**Goliath**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.

That's a fething *huge* number of people!
Source please

Didn't Sommers address that claim, and totally discredit the source?

No, she didn't. Just because Ms Sommers is critical of something doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong. She criticised the size of the study, as well as the criteria by which Sexual Assault is defined. It didn't discredit it, it cast doubt on some of the points made, and her claim that "it's actually 1 in 40" seems to just be pulled out of thin air.

**VorpalBunny74**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.

That's a fething *huge* number of people!
Source please
Didn't Sommers address that claim, and totally discredit the source?

I'm not sure, haven't watched the video, but I want to look at the data myself and make an informed opinion.

I don't trust ANYONE when it comes to interpreting data. Even me, sometimes

**daedalus**

whembly wrote:

Someone should make a foam costume of NYC, and then for the ultimate meta video, film "10 hours of NYC walking around in NYC".

**Slarg232**

whembly wrote:

I'm not sure if that's what I was expecting, but it's brilliant.

**Pendix**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
A bunch of people already tried to slime Dr. Sommons with the "But she's a conservative!" line (as if that means anything), to which she replied with "I'm a registered Democrat".

Um, I'm from Oz here, so I'm not in full understanding of the US political systems (and it's attendant institutions), but what actually makes someone a 'registered Democrat'? Is there some kind of mechanism or regulatory body that ensures you cant be a conservative and a 'registered Democrat' at the same time?

**Sining**

Sheesh, people. Just watch both videos and make your own conclusions. I have no idea why people go 'oh, noes this is by a conservative/liberal source, automatic discredit!'

But then again, I come from a country with 1 political party and very very heavy media manipulation -_-

**daedalus**

I have no idea why people go 'oh, noes this is by a conservative/liberal source, automatic discredit!'

**Sining**

Yeah. I'm not even seeing how my country affects americans perception of their own political parties.

**Slarg232**

Sining wrote:
Yeah. I'm not even seeing how my country affects americans perception of their own political parties.

Apparantly China is the only country that manipulates the media?

**Bullockist**

Sining wrote:
Yeah. I'm not even seeing how my country affects americans perception of their own political parties.

Well apparently it does, better be careful or they might launch another freedom crusade......maybe I shouldn't make jokes about that

**lord_blackfang**

VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Uhm.... 20% of American women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime.

That's a fething *huge* number of people!
Source please

Source is a 1980s survey where the author herself admitted that 3/4 of all the women they classified as "raped" did not perceive themselves as having been raped.

**Ouze**

You sure that's what it says?

You sure it doesn't actually say:

Koss cited the results of several studies that periodically updated the original Ms. survey showing a persistently similar ratio despite years of education about date rape: 1 in 4 or 5 women are the victims of rape or attempted rape, according to the legal definition, but only 1 in 4 of those women identifies her experience as rape.

So, there was some context there. Namely, that women who are raped will downplay the crimes committed against them because, well, read the link.

Also, of course, there are other surveys with similar numbers, just do some googling and see. It's a big problem and it has been for a long time.

**lord_blackfang**

Once you start disregarding the victims' own opinions on what happened because you know better, you can prove anything.