| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since no one is proposing outlawing looking, I think we basically agree except that you keep talking about how you don't.
Staring can be a form of harassment.
I disagree with you because people are proposing exactly that, however much you want to gloss over it. Sexual harrassment IS a crime, and IS outlawed. If we accept that "staring can be a form of [sexual] harrassment," then we are indeed advocating the outlawing of simply looking at a woman. Yes, ogling is crass, but like I said, I think we're better off ignoring it in order to focus on things we can realistically do something about without going down the rabbit hole.
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?
Pretty much everywhere. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010 more than 65,000 arrests were made for men in "sex crime other than rape or prostitution," while only 5000 women were.
I will grant you that there *may* be a disparity in the actual population rates of these crimes, but the sample at 13x more arrests of men suggests a very heavy bias. Some might even say a double-standard.
Meh, I've been on both sides of staring, and found it's pretty easily solved with, "Dude, take a picture, it'll last longer!"
Avert thine eyes, ye lech!
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?
Pretty much everywhere. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010 more than 65,000 arrests were made for men in "sex crime other than rape or prostitution," while only 5000 women were.
I will grant you that there *may* be a disparity in the actual population rates of these crimes, but the sample at 13x more arrests of men suggests a very heavy bias. Some might even say a double-standard.
What does that have to do with my question?
Are you suggesting that all of these, or even a significant percentage, were for walking around "too exposed"?
I'd need a lot more breakdown of "sex crime other than rape or prostitution" before I'd begin to accept that.
And then some evidence that men really don't "flash" others at a much higher rate than women, if that's what you're talking about.
I'd kind of assumed that we were talking about wearing skimpy clothing rather than deliberately showing your genitals to unsuspecting targets.
Because really in terms of a double standard of "Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested", I see a huge difference between wearing a short skirt and jumping up at someone and opening your raincoat to show off your penis.
Those are the available data. You can choose to not accept them (for whatever reason, incomplete, not granular enough, etc.) If you do so, however, you must accept that your position is based on a lack of data. By definition, your position is based on ignorance.
So reading through more of the Hollaback! website, this thread makes more sense.
While there is some talk of hollering back when safe,* most of the page is about the power of online storytelling and shifting public opinion through conversation. There is even a lengthy academic-ese download, DIALOGUE THROUGH STANDPOINT: Understanding Women’s and Men’s Standpoints of Sexual Harassment, that they recommend thusly:
"This article explains that men and women experience and understand sexual harassment in different ways. Dougherty makes the argument that in order for effective policy on sexual harassment to be created, the standpoints of both men and women will have to be taken into consideration."
I scanned some of it, but it was pretty academic. Might be of some use for some in the thread, though.
---
*"When a man approaches me/Sometimes, I throw a fit/Why? Because Brothers. Ain't. Shiznit." Which I take to be a black woman's [unlike MC Lyte I don't know if I'd say Sister Shante was a feminist] version of the leftist chant "Womans/(or Workers) rights are under attack/What do we do?/Stand up, fight back!" Or, as the brothers and sisters at OUR Wal-Mart would say (Black Friday's just around the corner, comrades!) Stand up, live better.
By that argument, so is JurgenV's claim of a double standard since that stat is at best...Those are the available data. You can choose to not accept them (for whatever reason, incomplete, not granular enough, etc.) If you do so, however, you must accept that your position is based on a lack of data. By definition, your position is based on ignorance.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?
Pretty much everywhere. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010 more than 65,000 arrests were made for men in "sex crime other than rape or prostitution," while only 5000 women were.
I will grant you that there *may* be a disparity in the actual population rates of these crimes, but the sample at 13x more arrests of men suggests a very heavy bias. Some might even say a double-standard.
What does that have to do with my question?
Are you suggesting that all of these, or even a significant percentage, were for walking around "too exposed"?
I'd need a lot more breakdown of "sex crime other than rape or prostitution" before I'd begin to accept that.
And then some evidence that men really don't "flash" others at a much higher rate than women, if that's what you're talking about.
I'd kind of assumed that we were talking about wearing skimpy clothing rather than deliberately showing your genitals to unsuspecting targets.
Because really in terms of a double standard of "Woman too exposed gets how dare you look, man too exposed gets himself arrested", I see a huge difference between wearing a short skirt and jumping up at someone and opening your raincoat to show off your penis.
Not at all. The stat shows a bias for arresting men for sex crimes (not rape or prostitution) for which indecent exposure is counted. Without data showing IE breaks the trend then it can be presumed to follow that trend. Indeed, the fact that the BJS counts IE in that category suggests that it does follow the trend of that category.
If you want more precise data, the impetus is on you to provide them.
Kirth, Looking !=staring. No one said looking was a problem. Kind of hard to avoid. Staring is more of a deliberate activity.
Paul, there is no actual clear line between "looking" and "staring" -- certainly not one that's good enough to hinge convictions on. "Staring = Sexual Harrassment = Illegal" is not a tenable position.
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 [socially] 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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I do defend their rights to free expression. But I never said they should be considered nice people. Everyone is free to say whatever they want, and everyone else is free to judge them based on what is said.
Just because I disagree with their ideologies doesn't mean I defend the idea of silencing them. In fact, it's really easy to defend the right of free speech of people who share your opinion, but it's far more important to defend the right of free speech of those you disagree the most with. That's the only way to make sure no one will try to silence you when you say something they disagree with.
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
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.
Seriously? Do you even read my posts or do you just cherry-pick what you want so I can be the villain on your social justice war?
And words such as "beautiful" or "darling" are not offensive. They might be annoying or inappropriate, but they aren't offensive just because they are being said by people you'd rather not have to listen to. Looking at someone is not offensive or harmful.
Looking at people is not harassment.... It might be creepy , but it's not really harassment. "But staring is different from looking!". And who is to say where one ends and the other starts? The woman? The man? What if they disagree? What if the man looked at her for 3 seconds, but she is so prude that she considered that to be staring? Should the man be condemned by sexual harassment?
Condemning anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or annoyed as harassment is a very slippery slope...
One of my neighbors once told me I should stop using some of my t-shirts because the images on them made him and his family feel uncomfortable... Well, tough luck! I'm not about to let people I owe nothing to tell me what shirts to wear. If they want to be bothered by a t-shirt, that's their problem.
What about those people who are made uncomfortable by gay marriage... Should we allow them to tell others who they can or cannot marry? Should we forbid members of the LGBT community from holding hands or kissing in public?
When multiple people on the street repeatedly offer me pamphlets I don't need or want... Is that harassment or just a nuisance?
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?
Not in New York. Anywhere a man can go without a shirt a woman can, for like 15 years now. You can thank breast feeding advocates.
Not in New York. Anywhere a man can go without a shirt a woman can, for like 15 years now. You can thank breast feeding advocates.
Amen! Sadly, in California, she can now be registered as a sex offender (as can any man who urinates outdoors in some states).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
