Sexy street harassment

Penny Tration

These are just two experiences I had with men approaching me, and it's extremely easy to see why one is downright fcuking nasty.

One - guy approaches me on the street to ask for directions. Is friendly and chatty. I'm walking the way he's going, and because he's friendly and polite, I offer to walk with him. He ends up asking to join me for coffee. We ended up in a bbrilliant relationship. Didn't last more than a year, but we're friends to this day.

Two - guy approaches me, tells me I'm sexy. I say 'um, thanks, but I have a boyfriend.' Guy says 'what do you drink, I'll get it for you.' I say that I'm not interested and I have a boyfriend. Guy starts talking in his own language (finnish, i found out after). I ask what he said. His response? 'i said you're so hot, I'd rape you.' cue me screaming at him to fcuk off and getting the hell out of dodge.


See the MASSIVE difference between the two? Please, the few people defending a man's 'right' to harass a woman, tell me what I did wrong, how i could have avoided situation 2?

Neyite

DeadHand wrote: »

Anyway, the point is genuinely creepy guys ruin everything for everyone. Well intentioned single guys (the vast majority) will see their perfectly reasonable advances cut down more rapidly and harshly than is fair by jaded girls weary of the slithering of the creeps. Girls out to enjoy themselves see their time wasted and mood spoiled by these vermin. Boyfriends, relatives and male friends that may happen to be out with their female loved ones are provoked into being more defensive and aggressive than they want to be or is wise.

Everyone's night gets wrecked.

Excellently put.

RDM_83 again

Ficheall wrote: »

Since we're lauding clarity - can you confirm what you mean here?

Well I would find being approached by chuggers annoying its not harassment but it is annoying, that sort of thing, I've been told by randomers to cheer up a fair few times but not regularly i didnt mind, I'd imagine if it happened more often it would annoy though.
Creepy is impossible to clarify sorry but sometimes it obvious to even me as a guy when something is creepy

P. Breathnach

green_screen wrote: »

...
Two - guy approaches me, tells me I'm sexy. I say 'um, thanks, but I have a boyfriend.' Guy says 'what do you drink, I'll get it for you.' I say that I'm not interested and I have a boyfriend. Guy starts talking in his own language (finnish, i found out after). I ask what he said. His response? 'i said you're so hot, I'd rape you.' cue me screaming at him to fcuk off and getting the hell out of dodge....

It's your fault: you shouldn't be hot.

Penny Tration

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's your fault: you shouldn't be hot.

:pac: I'm fat, not hot. Must be my own fault because my dress was low cut.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Piliger wrote: »

Exactly. This kind of nonsense where women demand men have all to be nice nice nice or else men are all nasty evil people and we'll post videos and crazy stories about them every day in the media. They refuse to face an imperfect world where some people are rude and some are clumsy - and where some women say they like men to pursue them and some say it's harassment, and some women say they want a man to persist and other say they think that is harassment and some want to be approached and some say that's harassment too, and where some women come home and say how a man whistled at her with immense pride and some claims it's yet another form or harassment !

Funny how it is ALL men's fault ! It's never the woman's responsibly. It's never the women who are told to change ! It's always the men who have to all of the changing.

Y'know, sometimes your posts make me a bit angry, and then you come along and just post something as toe-curlingly pathetic as this. So glad to read the responses from normal male posters on this thread and be reminded that most men are sound, because this sort of bull would make a gal forget.

smurgen

DeadHand wrote: »

Posters seem quick to dismiss and belittle women's experiences of harassment by men but it's a genuine, common problem I've seen it myself.

Myself, I've never shouted at a woman in the street not out of some noble feminist ideal (modern feminism has evolved from virtuous beginings into a wretched, divisive idealology imo) but because it's simply bad manners.

And look, a lot of whatboutery being deployed on this thread but anyone who has been out in the world a little will tell you that male sexual harrassment and general creepiness toward women and other men is far more prevalent than female sexual harassment and general creepiness toward men and other women. That is not to say that the latter doesn't exist, it does, but it is not a problem that is nearly as pervasive as the former.

I've seen it in action countless times when out with gfs, female friends or even just out. I've seen the reptile machinations of guys who impose themselves on women in a social setting and it makes my skin crawl. Forcing themselves into their company uninvited, refusing to accept their clear disinterest, insisting on interactions (I'll walk you home, I'll get you a drink) when it's so obvious that none is desired.

I had a girlfriend who was an eminently kind and approachable person. Which I loved but I found it also made her attract freaks like a lamp attracts flies. I couldn't handle this well at first but I eventually learned to let her fight her own battles, up to a point. Her having friendly conversations with fellas never bothered me nor did reasonable approaches that ended when she declined them. It was the guys who bugged her that did. In person and through technology. No, I didn't trawl through her phone and facebook, she complained of the constant, unwanted messages aloud. These guys knew she had a boyfriend.

Still, it was a bone of contention between us. A source of tension. She would accuse me of being overprotective. I don't know, maybe I was. In the end, it was one of many factors that ended what was, at times, a beautiful relationship.

Anyway, the point is genuinely creepy guys ruin everything for everyone. Well intentioned single guys (the vast majority) will see their perfectly reasonable advances cut down more rapidly and harshly than is fair by jaded girls weary of the slithering of the creeps. Girls out to enjoy themselves see their time wasted and mood spoiled by these vermin. Boyfriends, relatives and male friends that may happen to be out with their female loved ones are provoked into being more defensive and aggressive than they want to be or is wise.

Everyone's night gets wrecked.

My own experiences of being harassed? I've been touched and groped a few times in pubs/clubs. I thought nothing of it, nor did I enjoy it. It's such a rarity for me I can laugh it off or dismiss it easily. It doesn't make me feel threatened. It didn't make me feel good. I realise that if it happened with greater regularity, I wasn't a naturally stoic person or if I wasn't lucky enough never to have been sexually abused I would not have the capability or inclination to do this. This is why, in an ideal world, no-one touches anyone in a sexual manner uninvited.

Male posters are swinging into this thread to tell horror stories about sexually aggressive female behaviour toward them but, without wishing to dismiss anyone's ordeals, I can't help but feel there is an element of exaggerration for the sake of political pointscoring going on.

From my own experiences, nothing will convince me that the harrassment of women in social settings is not a real, common problem or that female on male harrassment is as prevalent as male on female harassment.

Just because your girlfriend couldn't deal with the situations made it an issue. My last girlfriend was tough and could deal with situations better than most guys I knew.Funnily enough she also complained that she never got chatted up in pubs or clubs and she would be considered a good looking women. it wasn't the guys probablem that your girlfriend came across as friendly.
And exaggeration for effect? Do you have any examples?
I just don't know what the point of this thread is to be honest with you.we all know that harrassement is wrong. I'm guarantee the guys doing it know it too but they choose to do it anyway.People that hastle you need to be dealt with by the gardai if you can deal with the situation yourself. Why does it need to be disceted anymore?
Also I haven't even begun to start on gay men making advances on straight males. Which has happened to me also. I think it's the coping and behaviour mechanisms of the person subjected to the harrassment that needs to change.and that isn't ideal,I understand but it's simply being pragmatic. You cannot change other people's behaviour,just your own,simple as.

osarusan

Zulu wrote: »

Fair play; a masterclass in avoiding/ignoring the salient point by yourself.

The fact that you have missed the first part of my post, and the salient point entirely (probably as it didn't suit your argument) explains why your retort isn't really applicable to my point.

No, I'm addressing the second part of your post, in which the strawman is the fact that you're conflating the comments somebody makes (and chooses to make) with their existence as a person.

If a girl is uncomfortable after being whistled at by a guy as she walks down the street, she's feeling uncomfortable because of what he did, not because of the fact that he exists.

To compare it to a black person sitting beside a racist, or an ugly man scaring a girl simply by being near her, is pointless, as you're comparing acts with states of being, and that's useless.

The first part of your post argues that there is the behaviour which is unanimously agreed to be unacceptable, and then there is behaviour, the inappropriateness of which is debatable.

For the most part, I agree with it, so I didn't comment. But not commenting on that doesn't mean the second part of your post wasn't a stupid strawman.

Too Tough To Die

My heart bleeds. I get unwanted attention from hobos every day of the week.

kylith

smurgen wrote: »

I think it's the coping and behaviour mechanisms of the person subjected to the harrassment that needs to change.and that isn't ideal,I understand but it's simply being pragmatic. You cannot change other people's behaviour,just your own,simple as.

Well, you'll certainly never change people's behaviour by saying 'You can't change people's behaviour".

Peoples' behaviour is changed by social pressure all the time. Simply covering 'not yelling at people in the street' and 'how to recognise social cues' in a civics class in school would be a start.

Balmed Out

DeadHand wrote: »

Male posters are swinging into this thread to tell horror stories about sexually aggressive female behaviour toward them but, without wishing to dismiss anyone's ordeals, I can't help but feel there is an element of exaggerration for the sake of political pointscoring going on.

From my own experiences, nothing will convince me that the harrassment of women in social settings is not a real, common problem or that female on male harrassment is as prevalent as male on female harassment.

You don't want to dismiss what happens to women but your happy to put anything that happens to men as exaggeration and point scoring. I think that's unfair.

As I've gotten older and with less hair on my head it rarely happens now but would have happened a lot when I was younger. From 16 I worked in a hotel often glass collecting. Women usually in groups generally much much much older women were very aggressive and not just pinches on the ass but proper full on groping knowing with full hands I could never stop them.
Ive never seen anything of the same level happening to women though thats not the say it doesnt happen but Im not sure if its as prevalent. Ive heard of more abusive language or sneaky pinches but ive never seen groups of men ganging up and touching up a woman.

There is a big difference in that (perhaps im completely wrong) but the type of man to do it does so in a more predatory manner and is stronger and more threatening. Gangs of old women groping you is humiliating and embarrassing but its not like your worried about them raping you or anything. Because of the strength of a man vs a woman it is obviously more threatening and dangerous.

Zulu

osarusan wrote: »

No, I'm addressing the second part of your post, in which the strawman is ...
If a girl is uncomfortable after being whistled at by a guy as she walks down the street, she's feeling uncomfortable because of what he did, not because of the fact that he exists.
...But not commenting on that doesn't mean the second part of your post wasn't a stupid strawman.

You've missed the point. Again.
In your example, there's nothing wrong with a whistle. The issue is with the perceived connotation of the whistle. And the problem therein is the "perceived connotation".
Sometimes this is obvious, sometimes discrete. What causes comfort or offence in one person may be a welcome interaction in another.

My point? (let me clarify as you seem to have gotten bogged down with the word "existence")
In an ideal world, no one should be made to feel uncomfortable. However in a practical world if your "perceived connotations" make you feel uncomfortable that's no ones fault but your own. And the solution isn't to pander to your insecurities. Sometimes we all need to toughen up a little.

the_monkey

TomJerryPoochy wrote: »

This is how women like to be approached apparently as it seems to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEuKxDquy7E

This guy has a gift..

Duck Soup

Zulu wrote: »

1.) I'm a big scary rough looking man with tatoos and I sit down beside you. I'm scary. I scare you. So I'm not ok. <fail>
2.) I'm a racist. You're black. You sit down beside me. I feel uncomfortable. So you are not ok. <fail>
3.) I'm a traveler. I sit down beside you. You feel uncomfortable. So I'm not ok. <fail>
4.) I'm looking to pull. I'm ugly and awkward. I try to chat you up. I make you feel uncomfortable. So I'm not ok <pass? really??>

Look, in an ideal world, no one should be made to feel uncomfortable. However in a practical world if my simple existence makes you feel uncomfortable in a dark alley, that's not my fault (I need to walk home too). And the solution isn't to pander to your insecurities by removing me. Sometimes we all need to toughen up a little.

In the first three examples, someone sits next to you. In the fourth, they initiate unasked for - and presumably persistent - conversation.

Why the disparity? I don't have a problem with ugly awkward people. Some of my best friends have faces like a bag of hammers.

I think the notion that talking to attractive strangers for no apparent reason is not sexual at root is risible. The women in the video isn't being stopped or hollered at for her opinions on geopolitics.

For those who broadly take a contrarian view, I'd simply ask one thing. Talk to a woman you know well - sister, girlfriend, friend - and ask them how often strangers talk to them and how it makes them feel. The couple of answers I got back suggest (1) it doesn't happen every day, but enough to be annoying (2) depending on place and context, it can range from annoying to scary and (3) for me, the most interesting point: neither of them considered it flirting, as that is usually done by someone you know.

Oh and (4) they know they're being hit on, no matter how you dress it up.

RobYourBuilder

Spent ten hours walking through the sh*tholes of NYC. All I got was two minutes of video clip.

Spend ten hours walking through the worst areas of any city and you will get unwanted attention and some abuse. From both genders.

i think the issue is that each comment is not being taken for itself i would question how some could be regarded as harassment and others i think are creepy as **** and anyone that considers them otherwise should have a look at what they do from another persons perspective

for example the obvious one is "hey beautiful have a nice day"-
no doubt any of the videos supporters would agree that this is far from harassment and can be taken out of the conversation

comments like "how are you this morning", "how are you doing"-
no harm in these at all although I'm sure some will disagree these are not harassment. as an example a buddy was in the library with a buddy of mine recently and he saw a girl looking at a few book he liked he felt she was attractive and seemed to have at least a similar interest in books to him so he started talking to her, they hit it off went to grab a coffee and seem to be getting on great. he did not harass her and he is not a creep for doing this.
the issue arises when a girl/boy says no in this instance in that case the initiator should feck off the turns into harassment and to be frank nobody ever got a date because they admired your perseverance

wolf whistles, or to take from the video comments like "damn" - pointless/primitave/stupid often times someone showing off to there mates i would imagine its rare its done outside of a group but in themselves harmless i can't see how this would make someone feel threatened i can however see how it makes someone uncomfortable. should not happen but i fear it is more or less impossible to stamp this out.

following somebody ala the creeps in the video-
i dont understand the logic behind this it should never happen and someone is absolutely 100 percent right in bringing this to someones attention.
its worth noteing that a lot of the time this does not end up being someone following you. iv felt i was being followed as a group has taken a few turns behind me, felt uncomfortable and prepared to defend myself but they (for me at least fortunately) have always turned off and gone on there own way. it is important to distinguish this from the likes of the two lads in the video.

physical assault ie. grabbing,rubbing,scratching-
these are a completely separate issue they are wrong across the board, there is no questioning there wrongness and to be honest they are not the point of the video so there misplaced in this thread.


also the op video in particular has to be taken with a pinch of salt for a few reasons
1. as a previous poster stated she is walking through rough particularly areas. oftentimes what happens in this area is less a social issue than an issue with the area. rough areas oftentimes house rough people. she should not be walking through these areas alone and there is no point in informing a drug dealer/gangster about these issues it will do no good.
2. she was walking around with a camera in front of her. this is drawing attention and asking for trouble, people do stupid things in front of cameras. nobody walks up to a random person and shouts "i ****ed her in the pussy".
3. in 10 hours walking through a particularly rough area we where given less than two minutes of "harassment" and although some of these where serious issues some of these where not harassment at all. this makes me question what the other comments where.


to summarise
1. i think people are grouping different issues into one on this thread and thats where the confusion is stemming from.
2. although i feel the likes of wolf whistling should not be acceptable i will not be giving to this charity as i feel there are more important issues out there like actual assaults, disease, poverty that i would rather give money to. also i do get the impression that this is a "man bastard" organisation given the way the video was presented

osarusan

Zulu wrote: »

In your example, there's nothing wrong with a whistle. .

According to who?

Edit: and when you talk about 'perceived connotations', what do you think is the big difference in the connotations of the whistle as implied by the whistler, in comparison with the connotations of the whistle as inferred by the object of the whistle?

Zulu

osarusan wrote: »

According to who?

There's something wrong with the physical action of whistling now is there?

Edit: and when you talk about 'perceived connotations', what do you think is the big difference in the connotations of the whistle as implied by the whistler, in comparison with the connotations of the whistle as inferred by the object of the whistle?

The object of the whistle? You mean the person walking past who's offended/feeling uncomfortable?

The big difference is that the connotation isn't necessarily clearly defined, or indeed directed. There are assumptions being made. Or indeed several assumptions being made.

osarusan

Zulu wrote: »

The big difference is that the connotation isn't necessarily clearly defined, or indeed directed. There are assumptions being made. Or indeed several assumptions being made.

Yes, i mean the person being whistled at.


What are these assumptions that are being made?

DeadHand

smurgen wrote: »

Just because your girlfriend couldn't deal with the situations made it an issue. it wasn't the guys probablem that your girlfriend came across as friendly.
And exaggeration for effect? Do you have any examples?

I never said my ex girlfriend couldn't deal with these situations. She could. I at times underestimated her ability and desire to do so. That was my failing. The point was that if we hadn't encountered creeps with the regularity we did the problem wouldn't have arisen between us.

The fact she was friendly wasn't the guys problem, the fact he persisted in his sexual advance after she'd politely told him she had a boyfriend was. Being friendly and approachable does not give people the right to pester you.

Exaggeration? Ok, you, for example, claimed that you've been touched, sexually and univitedly, by girls "almost everytime" you went to a nightclub. So, for argument, if you went to a nightclub 100 times this has happened to you 95-99 times.

Do you stand by that claim?

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

There's something wrong with the physical action of whistling now is there?

The object of the whistle? You mean the person walking past who's offended/feeling uncomfortable?

The big difference is that the connotation isn't necessarily clearly defined, or indeed directed. There are assumptions being made. Or indeed several assumptions being made.

Big difference between someone whistling a tune going down the street in a merry way all to themselves and a very deliberate wolfwhistle as a woman walks past wouldn't you say?

Isaiah Narrow Turbojet

Isaiah Narrow Turbojet wrote: »

i think the issue is that each comment is not being taken for itself i would question how some could be regarded as harassment and others i think are creepy as **** and anyone that considers them otherwise should have a look at what they do from another persons perspective

for example the obvious one is "hey beautiful have a nice day"-
no doubt any of the videos supporters would agree that this is far from harassment and can be taken out of the conversation

comments like "how are you this morning", "how are you doing"-
no harm in these at all although I'm sure some will disagree these are not harassment. as an example a buddy was in the library with a buddy of mine recently and he saw a girl looking at a few book he liked he felt she was attractive and seemed to have at least a similar interest in books to him so he started talking to her, they hit it off went to grab a coffee and seem to be getting on great. he did not harass her and he is not a creep for doing this.
the issue arises when a girl/boy says no in this instance in that case the initiator should feck off the turns into harassment and to be frank nobody ever got a date because they admired your perseverance

sitting next to someone and ignoring that the seat is taken-
less harassment than someone being an asshole it happens with the same and the opposite sex this is not a sexual harassment issue

wolf whistles, or to take from the video comments like "damn" - pointless/primitave/stupid often times someone showing off to there mates i would imagine its rare its done outside of a group but in themselves harmless i can't see how this would make someone feel threatened i can however see how it makes someone uncomfortable. should not happen but i fear it is more or less impossible to stamp this out.

following somebody ala the creeps in the video-
i dont understand the logic behind this it should never happen and someone is absolutely 100 percent right in bringing this to someones attention.
its worth noteing that a lot of the time this does not end up being someone following you. iv felt i was being followed as a group has taken a few turns behind me, felt uncomfortable and prepared to defend myself but they (for me at least fortunately) have always turned off and gone on there own way. it is important to distinguish this from the likes of the two lads in the video.

physical assault ie. grabbing,rubbing,scratching-
these are a completely separate issue they are wrong across the board, there is no questioning there wrongness and to be honest they are not the point of the video so there misplaced in this thread.


also the op video in particular has to be taken with a pinch of salt for a few reasons
1. as a previous poster stated she is walking through rough particularly areas. oftentimes what happens in this area is less a social issue than an issue with the area. rough areas oftentimes house rough people. she should not be walking through these areas alone and there is no point in informing a drug dealer/gangster about these issues it will do no good.
2. she was walking around with a camera in front of her. this is drawing attention and asking for trouble, people do stupid things in front of cameras. nobody walks up to a random person and shouts "i ****ed her in the pussy".
3. in 10 hours walking through a particularly rough area we where given less than two minutes of "harassment" and although some of these where serious issues some of these where not harassment at all. this makes me question what the other comments where.


to summarise
1. i think people are grouping different issues into one on this thread and thats where the confusion is stemming from.
2. although i feel the likes of wolf whistling should not be acceptable i will not be giving to this charity as i feel there are more important issues out there like actual assaults, disease, poverty that i would rather give money to. also i do get the impression that this is a "man bastard" organisation given the way the video was presented

forgot the bit in bold

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Zulu wrote: »

There's something wrong with the physical action of whistling now is there?

The object of the whistle? You mean the person walking past who's offended/feeling uncomfortable?

The big difference is that the connotation isn't necessarily clearly defined, or indeed directed. There are assumptions being made. Or indeed several assumptions being made.

There's nothing wrong with the physical act of whistling in and of itself. Just like "hey baby, hey you, hey listen to me, you wanna see what I've got for you?" is a perfectly innocent sentence if a mother says it to her toddler when she's giving it an orange. It is absolutely disingenuous to pretend that you don't understand the role that context plays in these interactions, and to pretend that that context and its impact on the meaning of the interaction is not understood by the whistler/cat-caller/yeller.

Zulu

osarusan wrote: »

Yes, i mean the person being whistled at.

What are these assumptions that are being made?

Seriously? You believe there are no assumptions being made?

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

Big difference between someone whistling a tune going down the street in a merry way all to themselves and a very deliberate wolfwhistle as a woman walks past wouldn't you say?

Indeed, there can be. What if the person was whistling a rapey song?

Zulu

Paige Brave Poker wrote: »

It is absolutely disingenuous to pretend that you don't understand the role that context plays in these interactions, and to pretend that that context and its impact on the meaning of the interaction is not understood by the whistler/cat-caller/yeller.

No it's not. To assume that the person being offended is always right is utter horseshit. Since when are people infallible? ...unless I guess it was the Pope walking, I suppose.

My point is that context can be misinterpreted. People need to stop jumping out of their skin in order to be offended.

osarusan

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? You believe there are no assumptions being made?

I believe that there are assumptions being made.

I think the person being whistled at will assume that the person doing the whistling is making a vague sexual/suggestive act.

I think they assume that because in the vast vast majority of cases, that is indeed why the person is whistling at them.

Are they (and I) way off the mark, in your opinion? What do you think people mean when they whistle at people walking past them on the street?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Zulu wrote: »

No it's not. To assume that the person being offended is always right is utter horseshit. Since when are people infallible? ...unless I guess it was the Pope walking, I suppose.

My point is that context can be misinterpreted. People need to stop jumping out of their skin in order to be offended.

You need to stop perceiving rational discussion of other people's behaviour as deliberately seeking or hysterically exaggerating offence.

How is it possible to misinterpret a wolf-whistle from a stranger? What is it that you think these creeps mean? "You dropped your phone"? "You remind me of my daughter"? "I don't much care for Jurassic Park"?

RobYourBuilder

This feminist seems upset that there were not enough white men harassing the woman in the video. The undertones of her article: "We need more white men street harassing women!"

http://i.imgur.com/Vhfpm38.jpg

Fuhrer

This video is in New York though, quite a rapey place.


Whats it like for women in places like London or Dublin?

One eyed Jack

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously? You believe there are no assumptions being made?

The only assumption being made is that the person whistling at another person assumes the other person needs to hear it. Why do they assume the other person needs to be notified that this person finds them attractive?

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

Indeed, there can be. What if the person was whistling a rapey song?

What's a "rapey" song? I'd probably be creeped out if some bloke was walking behind me singing "I'm going to rape you, I'm going to rape you" in a sing song voice. Most people would.
If he was whistling it then I wouldn't know the lyrics and I wouldn't care.

Whistling a tune and giving a wolf whistle are two completely different things and you know it.

Chunners

Piliger wrote: »

Exactly. This kind of nonsense where women demand men have all to be nice nice nice or else men are all nasty evil people and we'll post videos and crazy stories about them every day in the media. They refuse to face an imperfect world where some people are rude and some are clumsy - and where some women say they like men to pursue them and some say it's harassment, and some women say they want a man to persist and other say they think that is harassment and some want to be approached and some say that's harassment too, and where some women come home and say how a man whistled at her with immense pride and some claims it's yet another form or harassment !

Funny how it is ALL men's fault ! It's never the woman's responsibly. It's never the women who are told to change ! It's always the men who have to all of the changing.

No one is blaming ALL men, for the most part the women who have posted are talking about isolated incidents and trying to convey to ALL men reading this thread how intimidated they felt in those situations (as they were asked to do in the OP) but at no time was anyone placing blame on ALL men, no one even accused ALL men. Granted some people used the word "Men" as a generalization but that was more just bad grammar than actual intent and I think ALL the people posting that did use that generalization would agree that what they meant to say was "some men" and to imply otherwise is just being disingenuous and deliberately confrontational on your part.

newport2

Zulu wrote: »

No it's not. To assume that the person being offended is always right is utter horseshit. Since when are people infallible? ...unless I guess it was the Pope walking, I suppose.

My point is that context can be misinterpreted. People need to stop jumping out of their skin in order to be offended.

In fairness, a lot of these cases are not about women being offended. They are about women being intimidated. If you are intimidating someone with your behaviour, you should really stop what you're doing.

the evasion_kid

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

This feminist seems upset that there were not enough white men harassing the woman in the video. The undertones of her article: "We need more white men street harassing women!"

http://i.imgur.com/Vhfpm38.jpg

Coming from the author of such classics as "the end of men" :rolleyes:

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

What's a "rapey" song?

Dunno. But they exist apparently. One was quite big in the charts last year. All part of the rape culture...

Whistling a tune and giving a wolf whistle are two completely different things and you know it.

Of course I do. I'm not defending the wolf whistle (not that in 37 years I've ever heard it directed at a woman in Dublin). I'm simply suggesting that, if you are so sensitive that you get offended by such things, you need to grow skin a little thicker.

Paige Brave Poker wrote: »

How is it possible to misinterpret a wolf-whistle from a stranger?

It could be directed at the other person across the road and not you (for one).

One eyed Jack

Zulu wrote: »

It could be directed at the other person across the road and not you (for one).

Why is it necessary at all?

Balmed Out

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not defending the wolf whistle (not that in 37 years I've ever heard it directed at a woman in Dublin).

The movie stereotype of whistling builders, has anyone seen that in real life?

Wibbs

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

This feminist seems upset that there were not enough white men harassing the woman in the video. The undertones of her article: "We need more white men street harassing women!"

Much more likely her "undertones" are that the video comes across as racially and class biased. Which it does. Nearly every example is a Black or Latino American man. No middle class White(or Black for that matter) men in suits to be seen. In a demographic where over half of men are White. Their subsequent explanation that over the ten hours of filming White guys were equally involved, but for technical/sound reasons didn't make the final cut seems just a little dubious to me. Even more dubious when one considers that your middle class White American male is often seen as the privileged, even the "enemy" by those on the left/liberal side their omission from this video is interesting.

Either the reality is that this kind of catcalling is more likely as part of the Black and Latino culture(or subcultures within), or they deliberately avoided more White or middle class areas. Either way I do find it dubious.

It must be said that some cultures and subcultures are more likely to have this kinda harassment. Some middle eastern cultures for example. Ask any western woman who's traveled in that neck of the woods. Within Europe the Latins would be more likely to do this kind of thing. More likely to get hassled in say Rome than in Bonn. I am not suggesting that it doesn't happen in places like Bonn, just the likelihood is less.

Playboy

Parody video now available!

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-parody-of-the-viral-catcall-video-is-here-and-its-glorious--lymgJDPkPg

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

Of course I do. I'm not defending the wolf whistle (not that in 37 years I've ever heard it directed at a woman in Dublin). I'm simply suggesting that, if you are so sensitive that you get offended by such things, you need to grow skin a little thicker.

Where do you draw the line though?

One man might wolf whistle or say "nice tits". No big deal as a once off. But if you're getting it on a regular basis, combined with some of the more serious stuff like getting followed or groped, it's hard to just take it as a little lighthearted gesture.
Maybe look at the bigger picture and see that any form of bothering a woman who is just going about her business isn't right or fair. At the very least it's annoying and bothersome. At the most it's scary and intimidating. It would depend a lot on context and location and time of day.

So for example someone saying "hi sexy" on main street at midday with hoards of people around is sleazy but not scary. Hearing that as you walk down a laneway in the dark with nobody around but you and the person saying it and it's a whole other kettle of fish.

As has been mentioned many times on the thread, just have a bit of cop on and don't be a moron about how to approach a woman you're genuinely interested in getting to talk to. And if you're not actually interested in talking to her with the intention of asking her out or getting to know her then STFU and leave her to get on with her day without being bothered by smutty remarks.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Zulu wrote: »

Dunno. But they exist apparently. One was quite big in the charts last year. All part of the rape culture...

Of course I do. I'm not defending the wolf whistle (not that in 37 years I've ever heard it directed at a woman in Dublin). I'm simply suggesting that, if you are so sensitive that you get offended by such things, you need to grow skin a little thicker.

It could be directed at the other person across the road and not you (for one).

And for two? Also, just so I'm clear, we've changed from "the very act of whistling is being turned into something bad by people who get off on being offended" to "well he might not be whistling at you"?

Balmed Out

Wibbs wrote: »

It must be said that some cultures and subcultures are more likely to have this kinda harassment. Some middle eastern cultures for example. Ask any western woman who's traveled in that neck of the woods. Within Europe the Latins would be more likely to do this kind of thing. More likely to get hassled in say Rome than in Bonn. I am not suggesting that it doesn't happen in places like Bonn, just the likelihood is less.

Ive noticed it a lot in the middle east, Italy (not Iberia) and in Australia.

RobYourBuilder

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Coming from the author of such classics as "the end of men" :rolleyes:

This is a beaut;

But if the point of this video is to teach men about the day-to-day reality of women, then this video doesn’t hit its target. The men who are sitting in their offices or in cafes watching this video will instead be able to comfortably assure themselves that they don’t have time to sit on hydrants in the middle of the day and can’t properly pronounce “mami.” They might do things to women that are worse than catcalling, but this is not their sin.

Translation for this who don't speak snake: they deliberately walked through poor sh*thole areas of NYC to get the results they wanted, that they're now trying to project onto middle class white people.

Balmed Out

Balmed Out wrote: »

The movie stereotype of whistling builders, has anyone seen that in real life?

thats actually a fair point iv worked on a few sites (not a lot) and never heard it you could get fired for that why would you risk your job.

Zulu

Paige Brave Poker wrote: »

And for two? Also, just so I'm clear, we've changed from "the very act of whistling is being turned into something bad by people who get off on being offended" to "well he might not be whistling at you"?

Thats not clear at all. You are seeking assumptions so you can claim the topic is changing? That's just disingenuous.

You know what, be intimidated by your shadow and offended by the whistle. If thats what you need to satisfy your sense of indignation at society around you good for you.

I've made my point and if you and some others are determine to try and twist it I'll leave you off with it.

Chunners

Balmed Out wrote: »

The movie stereotype of whistling builders, has anyone seen that in real life?

I have in the past but not so much now but then again I live in the city center so I don't often pass building sites that being said I have a few friends that it has happened to in the last year or so while walking past a site

osarusan

ash23 wrote: »

So for example someone saying "hi sexy" on main street at midday with hoards of people around is sleazy but not scary. Hearing that as you walk down a laneway in the dark with nobody around but you and the person saying it and it's a whole other kettle of fish.

But how do you know they weren't talking to their bicycle lock?:rolleyes:

Zulu

osarusan wrote: »

But how do you know they weren't talking to their bicycle lock?:rolleyes:

How do you know there was a bicycle lock? :rolleyes:

Genius.

Taajsgpm

Gone Drinking wrote: »

I saw this video this morning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mWt3cjN0Y

In case you can't watch it, its a montage of a woman walking around New York silently, receiving lots of random attempted chat up lines and some sexist remarks, based purely on how well she looks (In fairness, HOT DAYUM).

The video says at the end there was 100+ instances of verbal harassment during the 10 hour experiment.. I dunno, one of the ones on video was "Hey Beautiful, have a good day", would that fall under harassment? I'd be delighted if a woman said that to me when I was walking down the road :P

In fairness, there's one creepy guy who just follows her around for five minutes, this and a few of the comments are completely not on.

So what's peoples thoughts on this? Have any men or women here ever experienced similar?

I have never understood how any man thinks its appropriate or how any woman would want that or like that . DOnt they have mothers? Do they actually think they can get a girl ? I think they just Assh^^les