Street Harassment


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people need to keep in mind this isn't about harming someone, this isn't about stalking someone for 5 blocks, this isn't about someone grabbing someone on the street with out their permission,no one thinks that is ok. This is about words said in passing, often times they are not sexually explicit.

Liberty's Edge

NobodysHome wrote:
What if every. Single. Person. You. Passed. Propositioned you for sex? How long would it take you to get sick and tired of it, and to want to just hide in your room and never come out again?

When I ran out of leave. But on the brightside, I'd really enjoy heading to work until then.

Of course, if we keep this in perspective the videos were roughly 1 person in every 5 minutes, and only a very small minority were explicit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.

Actually, Knight, I'm simply stating the obvious. She says that she's wearing provocative clothing. By definition, she gets exactly what she's doing; the definition proves it. Here, i'll post it again, just for you

Provocative:
1.Serving or tending to elicit a strong, often negative sentiment in another person; exasperating.
2.Serving or tending to excite, stimulate or arouse sexual interest.

Sums up exactly what she's doing. I'll go further: she's provoking a response that she knows she's going to get to further a cause; anti- sexual harrassment, a good cause to promote. She knows she's gonna get catcalls dressed like that, so she tapes herself and makes a commercial furthering her cause's agenda. End of story.

And the sports team analogy is lame. I'm a Yankees fan in Red Sox nation. I know that if I wear Yankees gear, there will be consequences of ribbing and harrassing. I accept it, it don't complain about it, and I give as good as I get and have fun with it. It's wayyyyy different than the point she's so obviously trying to make.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.

Basically, this.

Is someone wearing provocative clothing? Okay. Things that are still s!!@ty, if not illegal, to do based on that:
Cat-calling
Creepy staring
Touching them without their explicit consent
Making them feel uncomfortable with any sort of unwanted attention

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that people have a responsibility to control their own actions?

I'll partially disagree here.

1- The guy has the right to look at whoever he wants, whenever he wants. If someone doesn't like people looking at them, don't dress/act in a way that attracts attention.
2- If you dress/act in a way that attracts attention, it's highly hypocritical to complain about attracting attention just because it's coming from someone you don't want to pay attention to you.
3- The whole idea behind free speech is that you can say what you think despite what others might think of it. While possibly obnoxious, commenting on someone's appearance is not within those men's right and IMO, little more than a minor nuisance.

And, of course, because I just know someone will equate these words to me defending sexual harassment, I have to add:

4- No matter how a woman (or man) dresses, no one has the right to force her to do anything against her will. No one has the right to touch her without her consent or threaten her in any way (including, but not limited to: stalking her, blocking her path and/or invading her personal space).
6- The victim is never to blame for being assaulted. In fact, the victim is never to blame for falling victim to any crime. As an addendum, acknowledging the fact that there are ways to lower your chances of being victim to a crime in no way goes against that statement.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

ShadowcatX wrote:
I think people need to keep in mind this isn't about harming someone, this isn't about stalking someone for 5 blocks, this isn't about someone grabbing someone on the street with out their permission,no one thinks that is ok. This is about words said in passing, often times they are not sexually explicit.

The problem is that it happens very frequently, with the level of creepiness and physicality ranging from kind of annoying to literal, actual, physical assault.

The problem with saying that this "isn't about harming someone," is that the people who experience this harassment are saying: "this is harmful and uncomfortable and invasive to me and many others who experience this." It is a harmful behavior that needs to be addressed and curtailed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
I think people need to keep in mind this isn't about harming someone, this isn't about stalking someone for 5 blocks, this isn't about someone grabbing someone on the street with out their permission,no one thinks that is ok. This is about words said in passing, often times they are not sexually explicit.
The problem is that it happens very frequently, with the level of creepiness and physicality ranging from kind of annoying to literal, actual, physical assault.

Happening frequently makes it annoying, but not necessarily wrong. Lots of annoying things happen all the time, but I don't consider them to be morally reprehensible. "Creepy" is also not the same as "morally wrong". Walking around dressed as the clown from "It" is creepy, but not morally wrong.

mechaPoet wrote:
The problem with saying that this "isn't about harming someone," is that the people who experience this harassment are saying: "this is harmful and uncomfortable and invasive to me and many others who experience this." It is a harmful behavior that needs to be addressed and curtailed.

Catcalling itself is a verbal comment. It has no physical component. It can be followed by more serious behavior (such as touching someone against their will), in which case, it's that behavior, not catcalling itself, that is harmful and invasive.

I can see a reason to consider catcalling wrong, but it has nothing to do with being annoying, creepy or obnoxious. As I said multiple times, none of those things is the same as "morally wrong".

This reason is: The "catcaller" knows it will only cause a negative reaction (such as annoyance, fear, etc) but does it anyway, either because he actively wants the target to feel bad or because he simply doesn't care if she does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
lorenlord wrote:


She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.

Assuming that does flush her argument, which I will accept for the sake of argument, that deals with one example from one of the videos. Since the other women were not doing so and yet got similar responses, I don't see any reason to think dressing provocatively actually has anything to do with the the larger question.

I'm just responding to her specifically saying that she's dressing provocatively obviously on purpose, and eliciting EXACTLY the responce that the precise definition of the word expresses, and then goes on to QQ about it. What I am specificaly saying is, if you go out of your way to purposely do something to elicit a specific response, and then you get that response, you pretty much lose your vilidity to complain about said response. So like I said, mission accomplished for her.

NO, I'm not shaming anyone, Knight, I'm simply stating the blatantly obvious commentary of this particular instance.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Which means precisely jack.

If someone dresses in the colors of a sports team you dislike, thereby being provocative, you have zero right to yell things at them or abuse them verbally.

What you seem to be doing is victim blaming/shaming. The way she chose to dress doesn't give you any implicit right to abuse her. Dressing like a hipster doesn't give someone the right to abuse you. Wearing an RPG shirt doesn't give someone the right to call you names.

"Her clothes made me do it, Officer" doesn't wash.

Basically, this.

Is someone wearing provocative clothing? Okay. Things that are still s!!@ty, if not illegal, to do based on that:
Cat-calling
Creepy staring
Touching them without their explicit consent
Making them feel uncomfortable with any sort of unwanted attention

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that people have a responsibility to control their own actions?

I'll partially disagree here.

1- The guy has the right to look at whoever he wants, whenever he wants. If someone doesn't like people looking at them, don't dress/act in a way that attracts attention.
2- If you dress/act in a way that attracts attention, it's highly hypocritical to complain about attracting attention just because it's coming from someone you don't want to pay attention to you.
3- The whole idea behind free speech is that you can say what you think despite what others might think of it. While possibly obnoxious, commenting on someone's appearance is not within those men's right and IMO, little more than a minor nuisance.

And, of course, because I just know someone will equate these words to me defending sexual harassment, I have to add:

4- No matter how a woman (or man) dresses, no one has the right to force her to do anything against her will. No one has the right to touch her without her consent or threaten her in any way (including, but not limited to: stalking her, blocking her path and/or invading her personal space).
6- The victim is never to blame for being assaulted. In fact, the victim is never to blame for falling victim to any crime. As an addendum, acknowledging the fact that there are ways to lower your chances of being victim to a crime in no way goes against that statement.

1. Staring can be a form of harassment, and harassment is not a right. More on dressing in a manner that attracts attention in a later post, maybe.

2. "Attention" is different from harassment. Again, more in a later post when I have more time.
3. "Free speech" actually has pretty specific things that it covers. In any case, verbal sexual harassment is a crime not protected by free speech. Aside from legality, it's a s%%#ty thing to do, and if lots of women are saying, "this happens all the time and it's harmful to me," then it's not something to condone (not saying you are doing this) or take lightly (I am saying you might be doing this).

4-6. Yes, of course, but someone's personal space in public can be violated and invaded by verbal and non-physical harassment. That's the problem.


For the sake of irony:

Hollaback! Baltimore--Anti-Racism Policy: Replacing sexism with racism is not a proper holla back

From March, presumably before they needed more money: Replacing Sexism With Racism Is Not a Proper Hollaback by their co-founder and Executive Director and their Secretary of the Board of Directors

Even mentions Emmett Till and The Birth of a Nation.


@mechaPoet, those posts were repeatedly deleted, so I'll refrain from further quoting/commenting on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lorenlord wrote:


Sums up exactly what she's doing. I'll go further: she's provoking a response that she knows she's going to get to further a cause; anti- sexual harrassment, a good cause to promote. She knows she's gonna get catcalls dressed like that, so she tapes herself and makes a commercial furthering her cause's agenda. End of story.

You can post that definition all you want, it doesn't absolve any action.

And one more time, just for you: just because you don't have a problem being harassed or ribbed doesn't mean others should be subject to the same behavior. If you like that, great! Go for it. These videos and anecdotal evidence and comments here and elsewhere pretty much refute that women consider it cute, necessary, or friendly.

I'm not certain why this is hard to understand, or why the counter seems to be that a right is being taken away from someone. Well, I can understand it, I'm just hoping I'm wrong because it comes across from many people as "Don't tell me what to do!"


lorenlord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
lorenlord wrote:


She's admitting she dresses provocatively. How about Durngurn and thejeff look up the freking definition of provocative so I dont have to post it YET AGAIN. She has ZERO right to QQ, due to the fact that she is getting EXACTLY the response of what the definition is of how she HERSELF admits to dressing. SO mission accomplished for her.

That she does. So her argument goes flush.

Assuming that does flush her argument, which I will accept for the sake of argument, that deals with one example from one of the videos. Since the other women were not doing so and yet got similar responses, I don't see any reason to think dressing provocatively actually has anything to do with the the larger question.
I'm just responding to her specifically saying that she's dressing provocatively obviously on purpose, and eliciting EXACTLY the responce that the precise definition of the word expresses, and then goes on to QQ about it. What I am specificaly saying is, if you go out of your way to purposely do something to elicit a specific response, and then you get that response, you pretty much lose your vilidity to complain about said response. So like I said, mission accomplished for her.

And all the other women in this and other videos who are not dressing provocatively, on purpose or otherwise and getting very similar, in fact sometimes more extreme responses? You don't get to dismiss the problem or even this video based on one person.

Particularly since the other evidence strongly suggests that whether the woman dresses provocatively has little or nothing to do with the response.


Statement about recent street harassment PSA

And one they put out today:

Letter to Our Supporters on the Recent Street Harassment Video

Published on November 4,2014 at 12:44 pm in Uncategorized, no comments

Dear Supporter,

First and foremost, thank you for your continued support of Hollaback!. As some of you now may be aware, we have been the object of some negative press and comments on social media regarding the recent street harassment video by Rob Bliss Creative. When the video was released, we doubted more than 10,000 people would watch it. We never imagined that it would be viewed more than 32 million times.

Given your passionate and dedicated support of Hollaback!, we wanted to inform you how we are directly responding to the accusations of racial and class bias.

Last Thursday, we issued a statement that makes our position clear: Hollaback! understands that harassment is a broad problem committed by a broad spectrum of individuals across lines of race, location and class. We know from the 8,000 stories we’ve collected on ihollaback.org that there is no single profile for a harasser, and harassment comes in many different forms. We are deeply invested in a movement that is multiracial, gender inclusive and incorporates place-based leadership specific to each locale. Racial, gender, and class politics is a core part of our work. While we did not create this video, we did allow our name to be used at the end of it. We agree wholeheartedly that the video should have done a better job of representing our understanding of street harassment and we take full responsibility for that. I’m deeply sorry.

What we also want to say is: We’re listening. Hollaback! is a small but determined and diverse organization, and we’ve been overwhelmed with the amount of feedback we’ve gotten. This video, created and edited pro-bono by Rob Bliss Creative, has taught us an important lesson. Although we appreciate Rob’s support, which has helped garner over $10k in donations from new donors, we are committed to continuing to show the complete, overall picture.

We are using the door opened by this conversation to expose the harassment faced by women of color and LGBTQ folks that too often is ignored by the mainstream media. That’s why we’re using the money raised to create our own video series — with the first one currently under development and scheduled to release within the next two weeks. We’re also working to create clearer messaging, respond to specific news articles, work with partners to write an Op-Ed, showcase thousands more stories through our global research study with Cornell University, and start an open and transparent dialogue with the public to voice opinions and concerns.

We are leveraging this opportunity to bring greater attention to our driving mission: giving you the power to end street harassment.

Again, thank you for believing in us, being a part of this vital dialogue, and supporting Hollaback! as we continue and extend our mission. We welcome your thoughts and suggestions as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Emily May
Executive Director, Hollaback!
www.ihollaback.org
- See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/blog/2014/11/04/letter-to-our-supporters-on-the-r ecent-street-harassment-video/#sthash.U0doEnok.dpuf


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
And all the other women in this and other videos who are not dressing provocatively, on purpose or otherwise and getting very similar, in fact sometimes more extreme responses? You don't get to dismiss the problem or even this video based on one person. Particularly since the other evidence strongly suggests that whether the woman dresses provocatively has little or nothing to do with the response.

Partially disagree here again. It seems pretty obvious that catcalling does have a lot to do with how provocatively the woman is dressed (since that tends to attract more attention). That has no impact on how wrong it is, but there is an obvious co-relation.

While that doesn't justify dismissing the problem as a whole, dismissing the video is pretty reasonable. If you do something that is considered "provocative", it's very hypocritical to complain about attracting attention just because it's coming from someone other than whoever you want to pay attention to you.


Lemmy wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
I think people need to keep in mind this isn't about harming someone, this isn't about stalking someone for 5 blocks, this isn't about someone grabbing someone on the street with out their permission,no one thinks that is ok. This is about words said in passing, often times they are not sexually explicit.
The problem is that it happens very frequently, with the level of creepiness and physicality ranging from kind of annoying to literal, actual, physical assault.

Happening frequently makes it annoying, but not necessarily wrong. Lots of annoying things happen all the time, but I don't consider them to be morally reprehensible. "Creepy" is also not the same as "morally wrong". Walking around dressed as the clown from "It" is creepy, but not morally wrong.

mechaPoet wrote:
The problem with saying that this "isn't about harming someone," is that the people who experience this harassment are saying: "this is harmful and uncomfortable and invasive to me and many others who experience this." It is a harmful behavior that needs to be addressed and curtailed.

Catcalling itself is a verbal comment. It has no physical component. It can be followed by more serious behavior (such as touching someone against their will), in which case, it's that behavior, not catcalling itself, that is harmful and invasive.

I can see a reason to consider catcalling wrong, but it has nothing to do with being annoying, creepy or obnoxious. As I said multiple times, none of those things is the same as "morally wrong".

This reason is: The "catcaller" knows it will only cause a negative reaction (such as annoyance, fear, etc) but does it anyway, either because he actively wants the target to feel bad or because he simply doesn't care if she does.

Which, I suspect, the vast majority of the time he does know. Or should know, if he does it regularly and isn't willfully blind to the reactions he gets.

But I think were back to the earlier dissonance: We're talking about rude obnoxious behavior that we would like to stop or at least lessen. You're talking about evil and judgments on moral values.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And all the other women in this and other videos who are not dressing provocatively, on purpose or otherwise and getting very similar, in fact sometimes more extreme responses? You don't get to dismiss the problem or even this video based on one person. Particularly since the other evidence strongly suggests that whether the woman dresses provocatively has little or nothing to do with the response.

Partially disagree here again. It seems pretty obvious that catcalling does have a lot to do with how provocatively the woman is dressed (since that tends to attract more attention). That has no impact on how wrong it is, but there is an obvious co-relation.

While that doesn't justify dismissing the problem as a whole, dismissing the video is pretty reasonable. If you do something that is considered "provocative", it's very hypocritical to complain about attracting attention just because it's coming from someone other than whoever you want to pay attention to you.

It may be obvious to you, though I'm not sure what evidence you have. It seems like an obvious correlation, but that doesn't actually mean it's true.

The woman in the 100 catcalls video wasn't at all provocatively dressed and she got worse than anything they showed directed at the "provocatively dressed" woman.

In some other discussions, the only factor that was really agreed on was that past a certain age the harassment dropped off steeply. That age seemed to be late 40s-early fifties.


thejeff wrote:
Which, I suspect, the vast majority of the time he does know. Or should know, if he does it regularly and isn't willfully blind to the reactions he gets.

That's possible.

thejeff wrote:
But I think were back to the earlier dissonance: We're talking about rude obnoxious behavior that we would like to stop or at least lessen. You're talking about evil and judgments on moral values.

Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

thejeff wrote:
It may be obvious to you, though I'm not sure what evidence you have. It seems like an obvious correlation, but that doesn't actually mean it's true.

Well, for someone to comment on your appearance or talk to you, that person must first notice you out of thousands of people walking by. Dressing provocatively attracts more attention, so that increases the chance of being catcalled. That's pretty obvious.

Not as obvious, but still pretty obvious, is the fact that the men doing the catcalling are mostly commenting on the physical appearance people they find attractive. Provocative clothes most often emphasize physical attractiveness, therefore, that increasing not only the attention drawn to the woman, but also those men's motivation for catcalling.

This is not to say that provocative dressing makes catcalling okay, I'm merely noting that it does increase the chance of it happening to the woman.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Which, I suspect, the vast majority of the time he does know. Or should know, if he does it regularly and isn't willfully blind to the reactions he gets.

That's possible.

thejeff wrote:
But I think were back to the earlier dissonance: We're talking about rude obnoxious behavior that we would like to stop or at least lessen. You're talking about evil and judgments on moral values.
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

Whereas I have no problem condemned lousy, rude, obnoxious behavior or even just thoughtless, inconsiderate behavior, even when I don't think it is evil or morally wrong. Just don't do it.

And I've never suggested forbidding catcalling in any but the social pressure sense - certainly not outlawing it.

thejeff wrote:
It may be obvious to you, though I'm not sure what evidence you have. It seems like an obvious correlation, but that doesn't actually mean it's true.

Well, for someone to comment on your appearance or talk to you, that person must first notice you out of thousands of people walking by. Dressing provocatively attracts more attention, so that increases the chance of being catcalled. That's pretty obvious.

Not as obvious, but still pretty obvious, is the fact that the men doing the catcalling are mostly commenting on the physical appearance people they find attractive. Provocative clothes most often emphasize physical attractiveness, therefore, that increasing not only the attention drawn to the woman, but also those men's motivation for catcalling.

This is not to say that provocative dressing makes catcalling okay, I'm merely noting that it does increase the chance of it happening to the woman.

Yep. Good common sense argument. Seems reasonable to me.

But is it true?
We know that it does happen to demurely dressed women. We know that it happens to normally dressed women. We even know that it happens to not particularly attractive women. We know it happens to fat women. (In both cases those are likely to shift to insults if they don't get the response they want.)
It's quite possible there are other factors at work than perceived attractiveness - vulnerability, simple targets of opportunity, dominance, who knows what else.
As I said above, from other women who've experienced this, the only consistent factor was that it dropped off sharply after a certain age.

We'd need some actual statistical data say whether the apparently obvious conclusion actually holds.


thejeff wrote:

Yep. Good common sense argument. Seems reasonable to me.

But is it true?
We know that it does happen to demurely dressed women. We know that it happens to normally dressed women. We even know that it happens to not particularly attractive women. We know it happens to fat women. (In both cases those are likely to shift to insults if they don't get the response they want.)
It's quite possible there are other factors at work than perceived attractiveness - vulnerability, simple targets of opportunity, dominance, who knows what else.
As I said above, from other women who've experienced this, the only consistent factor was that it dropped off sharply after a certain age.
We'd need some actual statistical data say whether the apparently obvious conclusion actually holds.

I never said it was the only (or even the main) factor. But it's very obviously a factor. I'd dare say it's a pretty big one too.


Thejeff: So you are saying that ugly and fat women get worse than compliments on their body? Do we really have to assume it is the exact same phenomenon? After all, ugly and fat men get harassed about it too, while good-looking men do not. So, could it be that cat-calling is a behaviour specifically directed toward precisely attractive women, while everyone (men and women) is subjected to ugly- and fat-shaming?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Lemmy,
Please stop defending the rights of a~$@**#!s to be a#%*++!*s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a#&!#+!~s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.


Sissyl wrote:
Thejeff: So you are saying that ugly and fat women get worse than compliments on their body? Do we really have to assume it is the exact same phenomenon? After all, ugly and fat men get harassed about it too, while good-looking men do not. So, could it be that cat-calling is a behaviour specifically directed toward precisely attractive women, while everyone (men and women) is subjected to ugly- and fat-shaming?

No. I'm saying it often starts with a greeting or a compliment or proposition, just like normal catcalling, but in those cases where it does escalate it's more likely to turn appearance based insults.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:

Lemmy,

Please stop defending the rights of a*#*$%$%s to be a+#$&!!!s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a~$#+**@s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.

This comment is almost too stupid to even acknowledge, almost. It looks to me like you've read every comment Lemmy has posted and are willfully misunderstanding them.

Everyone, in the US, has the right to speak freely regardless of the content of their message. EVERYONE. People who are a-holes are not free from the consequences of their stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to be a-holes.

What you said is absolutely true. To think that anyone here is saying anything different from that is truly dumbfounding.

Grand Lodge

Caineach wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH
Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

Grand Lodge

Simon Legrande wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lemmy,

Please stop defending the rights of a*#*$%$%s to be a+#$&!!!s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a~$#+**@s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.

This comment is almost too stupid to even acknowledge, almost. It looks to me like you've read every comment Lemmy has posted and are willfully misunderstanding them.

Everyone, in the US, has the right to speak freely regardless of the content of their message. EVERYONE. People who are a-holes are not free from the consequences of their stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to be a-holes.

What you said is absolutely true. To think that anyone here is saying anything different from that is truly dumbfounding.

Someone's right to and @$$hole does not exceed someone else's right to feel safe.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Simon Legrande,
I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if racial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.


Richard McGuffin wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Lemmy,

Please stop defending the rights of a*#*$%$%s to be a+#$&!!!s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a~$#+**@s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.

This comment is almost too stupid to even acknowledge, almost. It looks to me like you've read every comment Lemmy has posted and are willfully misunderstanding them.

Everyone, in the US, has the right to speak freely regardless of the content of their message. EVERYONE. People who are a-holes are not free from the consequences of their stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to be a-holes.

What you said is absolutely true. To think that anyone here is saying anything different from that is truly dumbfounding.

Someone's right to and @$$hole does not exceed someone else's right to feel safe.

Where does that end? who gets to decide when we are safe and who gets silenced?


Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

You choose your clothes not your skin


Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them.

Given the video that sparked this national discussion, I'm not convinced that this is true.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And? Do you think a woman with the temerity to be dressed 'provactively'* in public deserves to be catcalled?

*=whatever provocatively means. Not a burkha, perhaps? Could you tell me what clothing you consider it ok for women to wear so as not to be catcalled?

Liberty's Edge

Richard McGuffin wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH
Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them.

Given the video that sparked this national discussion, I'm not convinced that this is true.

I think when its as extreme as shouting offensive things on the street, its generally not acceptable. The more subtle things like police aggression, unbalanced justice system, low expectations and 'doesn't fit the culture' not hirings are more of a problem precisely because they're not as blatant.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them.
Given the video that sparked this national discussion, I'm not convinced that this is true.

I think we're at the point where being openly racist gets condemned. More subtle racism is still pervasive, but widely denied.

This video may actually be a case in point. They got condemned, admitted they screwed up and are trying to make amends.

Grand Lodge

ShadowcatX wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH
Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?

Not if it risks their safety.


JurgenV wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.
You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.
You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.

Even if it was about just her, wearing provactive clothes does not equal an invitation for Harrasment.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if racial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

What you are suggesting is quite different from one hello every 5 minutes from different guys.

I will say that "Free speech so long as I find it agreeable" isn't free speech at all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Richard McGuffin wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH
Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
Not if it risks their safety.

So then why should anyone else have to stand up if it risks their safety?


ShadowcatX wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH
Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?

Why is it always "Forced"?

Whenever a discussion like this comes up, someone always jumps to the extreme: either "So men should be forced to never speak to women" or now "women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it".

Why not "Should be encouraged" or "Should be supported" or "Should be discouraged"? There are plenty of things I think we need more or less of that I don't think need to be mandated or banned. Plenty of bad behavior that should be discouraged or even condemned, but not made illegal.

More specifically, I believe Richard was suggesting bystanders speak up against it, not the woman. Or not just the woman at least. "f you stand by and do nothing", "the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone. "


thejeff wrote:

I think we're at the point where being openly racist gets condemned. More subtle racism is still pervasive, but widely denied.

This video may actually be a case in point. They got condemned, admitted they screwed up and are trying to make amends.

That's not exactly shunning, though, is it?

Not that I'm saying they should be shunned (even if their apology was a little weak). And then, of course, there have been other things in the news this past year where Americans have felt free to say racist things but don't get shunned.

Just sayin'.

Citizen Watson wrote:
I think when its as extreme as shouting offensive things on the street, its generally not acceptable. The more subtle things like police aggression, unbalanced justice system, low expectations and 'doesn't fit the culture' not hirings are more of a problem precisely because they're not as blatant.

Of course, one of the purposes of this thread, I've gathered, is to teach the menfolk that more subtle expressions of sexual harassment, such as leering, saying "hey beautiful" or, according to some posters "hello" are equally unacceptable even though they are less blatant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if racial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

What you are suggesting is quite different from one hello every 5 minutes from different guys.

I will say that "Free speech so long as I find it agreeable" isn't free speech at all.

Free speech is free speech as long as it isn't illegal and no one is suggesting making this illegal.

We're talking about social pressure and that's got nothing to do with free speech. We're talking about using our free speech to counter their free speech and that's what free speech is all about.
If you're not able to use your free speech to condemn speech that you consider contemptible, isn't that an infringement on your free speech.
Free Speech seems to be the last resort of open sexists and racists these days. Not in the "You can't arrest me" sense, but in the "You can't say bad things about me" sense.


Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.
You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.
Even if it was about just her, wearing provactive clothes does not equal an invitation for Harrasment.

Absolutely. I just don't want this to get shifted into an "It only happens to women who dress provocatively" direction.


Richard McGuffin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:
Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.
I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.
You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.
Even if it was about just her, wearing provactive clothes does not equal an invitation for Harrasment.

It is an invitation to be looked at so one cannot dress however they want and not expect people to look. I would love to see a bunch of fat hairy men run around in thong speedoes and scream at anyone that looks too long or comments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Staring can be a form of harassment, and harassment is not a right.

I've been mostly in agreement with the majority of what you've posted, but there are a couple of points that I have to disagree with.

1. Despite the insane Puritanism of the U.S., I do not believe nudity = sex. If you see someone in some state of undress, I do not believe you will be emotionally scarred for life, or that it should automatically be considered "sexual assault." Granted, U.S. law is generally against me on this, so I'll give you the win as far as that goes, but I find the pervasive "nudity = sex" attitude to be profoundly unhealthy and something that contributes to a host of other societal problems. In fact, as previously stated, I view the U.S. atttitude on this as being little different than the attitude that forces the burqa on women.

2. Looking =/= harassment. I understand what you're getting at -- "Ugh, that guy is LOOKING at me! Ooh -- CREEPY!!!!!" But there comes a point where the cure can be worse than the disease. Do you propose that all men walk around blindfolded? "No, of course not," you say. "They just shouldn't be allowed to stare." The problem is that's entirely subjective. The more bashful or fearful the woman, the more counts as "staring." Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that ogling people is creepy and should be considered crass and unacceptable -- but given the difficulty in pinning it down, I think this is one area where it's almost better to let things slide so we can focus on more concrete problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JurgenV wrote:
I would love to see a bunch of fat hairy men run around in thong speedoes and scream at anyone that looks too long or comments.

I would love to live in a time and place where those men would be considered totally unremarkable, so that people wouldn't ridicule them. See Germany's "FKK" culture in the '70s, for instance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hate the double standard. Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In poor taste/judgement != evil


Kirth Gersen wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
Staring can be a form of harassment, and harassment is not a right.

I've been mostly in agreement with the majority of what you've posted, but there are a couple of points that I have to disagree with.

1. Despite the insane Puritanism of the U.S., I do not believe nudity = sex. If you see someone in some state of undress, I do not believe you will be emotionally scarred for life, or that it should automatically be considered "sexual assault." Granted, U.S. law is generally against me on this, so I'll give you the win as far as that goes, but I find the pervasive "nudity = sex" attitude to be profoundly unhealthy and something that contributes to a host of other societal problems. In fact, as previously stated, I view the U.S. atttitude on this as being little different than the attitude that forces the burqa on women.

2. Looking =/= harassment. I understand what you're getting at -- "Ugh, that guy is LOOKING at me! Ooh -- CREEPY!!!!!" But there comes a point where the cure can be worse than the disease. Do you propose that all men walk around blindfolded? "No, of course not," you say. "They just shouldn't be allowed to stare." The problem is that's entirely subjective. The more bashful or fearful the woman, the more counts as "staring." Don't get me wrong -- I totally agree that ogling people is creepy and should be considered crass and unacceptable -- but given the difficulty in pinning it down, I think this is one area where it's almost better to let things slide so we can focus on more concrete problems.

Since no one is proposing outlawing looking, I think we basically agree except that you keep talking about how you don't.

"Ogling people is creepy and should be considered crass and unacceptable" is a far cry from "What's wrong with just looking and she wanted it or she wouldn't have worn that."


JurgenV wrote:
I just hate the double standard. Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested.

I hate the double standard too. Men can walk around without a shirt and women get arrested.

Where precisely are men getting arrested for walking around at the same levels of "too exposed" that a woman wouldn't?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Re staring

Every male is looking (or well, 90% of them). What you're getting mad at is their bluff not exceeding your sense motive.

351 to 400 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Street Harassment All Messageboards