Street Harassment


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 424 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Since no one is proposing outlawing looking, I think we basically agree except that you keep talking about how you don't.
"mechaPoet wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
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. "

I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Kirth,
Looking !=staring. No one said looking was a problem. Kind of hard to avoid. Staring is more of a deliberate activity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's a question for everyone.

Let's say that women should have a right to wear what they want without having guys stare at them based on how they dress because it is creepy. Should I not also have a right not to have women in immodest dress in my field of vision? They're just creepy, after all.


thejeff wrote:
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?

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!"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
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. "
I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

I found the Troll.

We already addressed your red herrings and I'm not going entertain your argument that helping a victim in a bad situation is sexist. If you want permission to harass women you are not going to get it from me. If you have anything constructive to say that adds to the conversation rather than derails it please do so. Up to this point you've only contributed one-liners that serve to detract. Don't be surprised if I ignore your future comments.


ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
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. "
I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

No. It implies that one person is weaker than multiple people. Someone being targeted with everyone else around them ignoring it often feels the rest of the group implicitly condones the behavior. A person not being targeted knows there is at least one ally.

And if you knew he was, why twist his post to say something else entirely? If you wanted to raise the "That's just as sexist" argument, raise that, instead of the "should we force the women being harassed to ..." nonsense.


Avert thine eyes, ye lech!

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
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. "
I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

No. It implies that one person is weaker than multiple people. Someone being targeted with everyone else around them ignoring it often feels the rest of the group implicitly condones the behavior. A person not being targeted knows there is at least one ally.

And if you knew he was, why twist his post to say something else entirely? If you wanted to raise the "That's just as sexist" argument, raise that, instead of the "should we force the women being harassed to ..." nonsense.

I'd rather force people to think about what they are saying than spoon feed everyone the truth behind their argumemts.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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?

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.


ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?
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. "
I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

No. It implies that one person is weaker than multiple people. Someone being targeted with everyone else around them ignoring it often feels the rest of the group implicitly condones the behavior. A person not being targeted knows there is at least one ally.

And if you knew he was, why twist his post to say something else entirely? If you wanted to raise the "That's just as sexist" argument, raise that, instead of the "should we force the women being harassed to ..." nonsense.

I'd rather force people to think about what they are saying than spoon feed everyone the truth behind their argumemts.

OR possibly you'd rather ignore arguments you can't counter and change your meaning to something else. Not to mention deliberately misreading other people's statements.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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?

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.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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?

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.

By that argument, so is JurgenV's claim of a double standard since that stat is at best tangentially related.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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?

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.
By that argument, so is JurgenV's claim of a double standard since that stat is at best...

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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No, it's not. You claimed the data showed something,. It doesn't, because it's not precise enough. Therefore, your statment that the data supports you is incorrect. You are mistaken.


Paul Watson wrote:
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.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
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.
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.

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.

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.

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?


thejeff wrote:
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?

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.


Caineach wrote:
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).

Paizo Glitterati Robot

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, it seems like this discussion can't be held without personal insults and pointed and hurtful hyperbole based on the last couple pages. I think we're gonna have to close this one up for now. If you want to make threads that touch on any of the topics brought up in this one, please give the Community Guidelines a once-over. Try to be respectful to each other, even if the other person is contradictory to your own stance. Make this about the topic, not other people in the discussion.

401 to 424 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