Sexy street harassment

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

...
The Belgian video included an interview with a woman who was moving away because she was so bothered by men's behaviour in the streets around her home. Is that in line with your suggestion that "we should be able as individuals, and as a society, to be able to address ... their behaviour towards us"?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

... Yes it is. Does she think that men don't exist outside her home town? Honestly, if she were able to maintain a sense of perspective, she would learn to control her own feelings towards those men if she happens to be one of those women who constantly receive unwanted attention from men. Most people learn this in early childhood, it's called self-control, and it can be as much a good thing in us, as a lack of it in others is a bad thing....

You're close to saying that it's her fault that she has beeen verbally harassed, and you are clearly saying that she should put up with it.

In taking such positions, you are effectively saying that verbal harassment on the street should be permissible.

I don't think you and I are on the same page.

One eyed Jack

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're close to saying that it's her fault that she has beeen verbally harassed, and you are clearly saying that she should put up with it.

In taking such positions, you are effectively saying that verbal harassment on the street should be permissible.

I don't think you and I are on the same page.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of my position if you had taken the time to read the rest of my post and try and understand the context within which I was saying that and why I said it. Instead you're trying to construe something I didn't say at all, you're attempting to set up a strawman instead of making an effort to understand where I'm coming from and you expect me to defend myself against something I never said.

If we're not on the same page, it certainly isn't for the lack of trying on my part.

UCDCritic

This video is cool

Actually shows a guy getting it far worse than the girl

P. Breathnach

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair assessment of my position if you had taken the time to read the rest of my post and try and understand the context within which I was saying that and why I said it. Instead you're trying to construe something I didn't say at all, you're attempting to set up a strawman instead of making an effort to understand where I'm coming from and you expect me to defend myself against something I never said.

If we're not on the same page, it certainly isn't for the lack of trying on my part.

I had read the rest of your post. I even let slide the fact that you ascribed to me a position that I didn't take, because I don't chase every rabbit down every hole.

I think my interpretation of the bit I quoted is fair.

One eyed Jack

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I had read the rest of your post. I even let slide the fact that you ascribed to me a position that I didn't take, because I don't chase every rabbit down every hole.

I think my interpretation of the bit I quoted is fair.

Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from, I just don't know how to articulate myself any better tbh.

All I can say is that I do know I wasn't blaming the girl in the video for the behaviour of the men in the video.

P. Breathnach

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from, I just don't know how to articulate myself any better tbh.

All I can say is that I do know I wasn't blaming the girl in the video for the behaviour of the men in the video.

The core of our disagreement is that, while we both agree that the behaviour shown in the video is wrong, you don't accept that anything should be done about verbal harassment, whereas I do.

In line with your believing that nothing should be done about it, you impose an expectation that a woman should "learn to control her own feelings towards those men if she happens to be one of those women who constantly receive unwanted attention from men". That's drifting perilously-close to blaming the victim. It also makes no allowance for the fact that not all people are psychologically-strong. Nor does it allow discrimination between low-level harassment and serious harassment or intimidatory behaviour.

DoYouEvenLift

UCDCritic wrote: »

This video is cool

Actually shows a guy getting it far worse than the girl

2 posts from you for the same video, which was already posted ITT?

UCDVet

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

2 posts from you for the same video, which was already posted ITT?

I haven't read all the pages in this thread - but I think it might just have been similar names - UCDVet and UCDCritic. Or (s)he posted it twice and I missed it.

Still - I think it's a very relevant video. And if we take the videos at face-value and assume neither was staged or setup, the guy only walked for 3 hours compared to 10, and (while I haven't done the maths), seemed to receive a comparable number of comments (if not more). Pages back, some people were debating whether this was a 'woman' issue or an 'attractive person' issue....this would seem to strongly suggest the later.

DoYouEvenLift

UCDVet wrote: »

I haven't read all the pages in this thread - but I think it might just have been similar names - UCDVet and UCDCritic. Or (s)he posted it twice and I missed it.

Still - I think it's a very relevant video. And if we take the videos at face-value and assume neither was staged or setup, the guy only walked for 3 hours compared to 10, and (while I haven't done the maths), seemed to receive a comparable number of comments (if not more). Pages back, some people were debating whether this was a 'woman' issue or an 'attractive person' issue....this would seem to strongly suggest the later.

My bad, didn't notice that lol!

upandcumming

The person behind the original video, admitted they removed most if not all of any comments from white people. This whole thing stinks.

moxin

Dunno if it has been said yet but all the men who have no problem with the hostility and comments towards any of the comments by strange men in the video should....dress as a woman "convincingly"(if you look that good :P) and see for themselves what women are up against. Thankfully what happened in the video is not that common in Ireland as in NYC but it still happens as witnessed by myself.

One eyed Jack

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The core of our disagreement is that, while we both agree that the behaviour shown in the video is wrong, you don't accept that anything should be done about verbal harassment, whereas I do.

Ok, I didn't mean to imply that anything shouldn't be done. I'm trying to say that legislating against it won't do anything either to prevent it, or curb the prevalence of it. It's low level antisocial behaviour at worst, and that's why I'm trying to say that it's up to each of us as part of society to do our part to eliminate the attitude that causes the behaviour, nip it in the bud so to speak, rather than expect that legislation should have any effect.

I also don't believe these set-up, edited, single individual perspective videos do anything to educate anyone. All they do is polarize people's opinions and they cause as much backlash as they do support, because they solidify people's indignance that they have the right to be ignorant, they don't care about how they're perceived, and the people that are affected by the issue then retaliate in return and you get all these pisstake videos, some of which have been posted in this thread already - the issue is trivialised far more than it's highlighted, and even the original video has drawn criticism for the issues it ignored while attempting to highlight one single issue.

In line with your believing that nothing should be done about it, you impose an expectation that a woman should "learn to control her own feelings towards those men if she happens to be one of those women who constantly receive unwanted attention from men". That's drifting perilously-close to blaming the victim. It also makes no allowance for the fact that not all people are psychologically-strong. Nor does it allow discrimination between low-level harassment and serious harassment or intimidatory behaviour.

Perilously close perhaps, but that again depends on your perception, and granted my inability to articulate my thoughts properly. What I'm talking about is that each of us is personally responsible for our own behaviour, and we are also personally responsible for how we react to the behaviour of others.

That's not me personally imposing expectations on anyone. That's an expectation that society imposes on each of us, in the very same way as I expect these men should be held responsible for their behaviour, the woman in the video is responsible for her own behaviour. That's not 'victim blaming', that's saying that everyone has a responsibility for themselves as adults to be aware of themselves and their surroundings and the risks they take in everything they do. If they have made every reasonable effort to avoid the unwanted behaviour of others imposed upon them, then of course they cannot be blamed if something happens to them that they couldn't have foreseen. Placing responsibility on others and expecting that you should have none is simply putting your safety in the hands of strangers. We teach children not to talk to strangers for their own safety, why would we not give adults the same advice? It's not victim blaming, it's teaching people that their personal safety is paramount above anyone else's feelings.

With regard to making allowances that everyone isn't psychologically strong, tbh I don't think you're giving people enough credit. That sounds like a throwback to a "damsels in distress" mentality which for me personally I just can't relate to as most women I know and have known are incredibly psychologically strong, incredibly so, and they would have overcome a hell of a lot worse than some sleazy randomer shouting after them that he just saw a thousand dollars.

I'm not saying either that everyone is an impenetrable psychological fortress, far from it. We all have our triggers that will cut us up from the inside out, leaving us feeling small, humiliated and degraded. We've all been there, every single one of us. We've all felt that sense of helplessness, rage and frustration at whatever it is that triggers those emotions within us. It's part of being a human being.

Recognising those triggers and learning to cope with the feelings we experience when they're triggered, allows us to gain a sense of perspective to be able to distinguish for ourselves the difference between low-level harassment and serious or intimidatory behaviour.

I would sooner encourage that sense of perspective within individuals than hope that complete strangers will behave appropriately towards me and treat me with the dignity and respect I feel I deserve. It'd be nice if they did, but I'd sooner lead by example and have people learn from that, than expect that as grown adults other people should need to be told how to treat other people with dignity and respect when they were never taught it as children.

TheBeardedLady

Comedy interlude:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUJ24mblCLY

Candy_Girl

Chunners wrote: »

Then your standards are too high. I'd consider him very good looking tbh

Not at all but I won't go off topic...continue on....

UCDVet

moxin wrote: »

Dunno if it has been said yet but all the men who have no problem with the hostility and comments towards any of the comments by strange men in the video should....dress as a woman "convincingly"(if you look that good :P) and see for themselves what women are up against. Thankfully what happened in the video is not that common in Ireland as in NYC but it still happens as witnessed by myself.

Doesn't the video of the man walking show that men face the same types of comments and harassment, dressed as men?

Having said that, I'm sure different patterns of dress would illicit a different rate of comments. For example - two men holding hands, or as you've suggested, a transvestite. I'd even venture to guess a man wearing enough Boston Celtic gear would experience it.

UCDVet

Candy_Girl wrote: »

Not at all but I won't go off topic...continue on....

For what it's worth, I didn't find the girl particularly attractive, personally.

UCDVet

upandcumming wrote: »

The person behind the original video, admitted they removed most if not all of any comments from white people. This whole thing stinks.

Seriously? Sigh - journalistic integrity and YouTube just don't seem to go together. Do you have a link, I'd love to read more?

EDIT:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/29/catcalling_video_hollaback_s_look_at_street_harassment_in_nyc_edited_out.html

We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera,” or was ruined by a siren or other noise. The final product, he writes, “is not a perfect representation of everything that happened.”

RobYourBuilder

UCDVet wrote: »

For what it's worth, I didn't find the girl particularly attractive, personally.

Does your opinion of the her looks really matter a bollix? We have got to stop breaking down street harassment by justification.

Ah, she's good looking. It's inevitable. Ah, he has red hair and glasses. It's inevitable. Ah, it's a transgender person. It's inevitable. Ah, it's a same sex couple. It's inevitable. Ah, he's tubby. It's inevitable.

I've brought up solutions to stop street harassment in this thread. Introduce new laws, report it to the cops, report it to the management; when in all honesty, the only way it will be clamped down upon, is when society deems it necessary. Well, it is necessary. Nobody should be made feel uncomfortable by others when going about their daily business.

If people are walking around feeling uncomfortable in our society, then we have a problem that needs to be changed in our society.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also don't believe these set-up, edited, single individual perspective videos do anything to educate anyone. All they do is polarize people's opinions and they cause as much backlash as they do support, because they solidify people's indignance that they have the right to be ignorant, they don't care about how they're perceived, and the people that are affected by the issue then retaliate in return and you get all these pisstake videos, some of which have been posted in this thread already - the issue is trivialised far more than it's highlighted, and even the original video has drawn criticism for the issues it ignored while attempting to highlight one single issue.

+1000 and the internet and social media magnifies this. In the online world, both the keyboard warriors and the keyboard victims are far more in evidence. As are the perceived lines drawn and we end up with the (almost entirely culturally US based) "gender war" nonsense that's spreading. When you see Irish men and women parroting US MRA/College Feminist stuff you kinda think WTF.

That's not me personally imposing expectations on anyone. That's an expectation that society imposes on each of us, in the very same way as I expect these men should be held responsible for their behaviour, the woman in the video is responsible for her own behaviour. That's not 'victim blaming', that's saying that everyone has a responsibility for themselves as adults to be aware of themselves and their surroundings and the risks they take in everything they do. If they have made every reasonable effort to avoid the unwanted behaviour of others imposed upon them, then of course they cannot be blamed if something happens to them that they couldn't have foreseen. Placing responsibility on others and expecting that you should have none is simply putting your safety in the hands of strangers. We teach children not to talk to strangers for their own safety, why would we not give adults the same advice? It's not victim blaming, it's teaching people that their personal safety is paramount above anyone else's feelings.

Ah here, you don't want to be saying things like that. Personal responsibility? Good god man, what madness...

That sounds like a throwback to a "damsels in distress" mentality which for me personally I just can't relate to as most women I know and have known are incredibly psychologically strong, incredibly so.

That's one of the biggest issues I have with "third wave feminism". Quite a lot of it wouldn't look out of place in a 19th century chauvinist missive against suffrage.

Holloback video producer wrote:

We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera,” or was ruined by a siren or other noise. The final product, he writes, “is not a perfect representation of everything that happened.”

Yea pal, I believe you, thousands wouldn't.

RobYourBuilder wrote:

Does your opinion of the her looks really matter a bollix?

+1000

suicide_circus

These videos are utter horse shiite, pure clickbait. Highlight nothing, solve nothing, educate no one. Edited for maximum trollage.

UCDVet

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Does your opinion of the her looks really matter a bollix? We have got to stop breaking down street harassment by justification.

Ah, she's good looking. It's inevitable. Ah, he has red hair and glasses. It's inevitable. Ah, it's a transgender person. It's inevitable. Ah, it's a same sex couple. It's inevitable. Ah, he's tubby. It's inevitable.

I've brought up solutions to stop street harassment in this thread. Introduce new laws, report it to the cops, report it to the management; when in all honesty, the only way it will be clamped down upon, is when society deems it necessary. Well, it is necessary. Nobody should be made feel uncomfortable by others when going about their daily business.

If people are walking around feeling uncomfortable in our society, then we have a problem that needs to be changed in our society.

I honestly don't understand your post....

First - why is this directed at me dismissing the woman as unattractive and not the people dismissing the man as unattractive? And, also, your argument seems to be that we are claiming it is 'inevitable'....but surely, it would be inevitable *IF* they were attractive, not if they weren't. My point was, it doesn't matter if he is or isn't attractive, just like it doesn't matter if she is or isn't attractive.

I won't claim to have read the entire thread, but I remain unconvinced there is any actual harassment taking place. We've shown that (relatively) attractive men and women walking down the streets of New York receive comments from other people. Some of which, some people, find undesirable. Other people, enjoy them.

I don't enjoy chuggers, beggers or religious people who knock on my door. But I still get approached by them. Is is fair to call it harassment? I am not convinced it is. It's unwanted, to be sure. And no amount of me wearing nice clothes or jingling my chance is an invitation for them to ask me for money....

The video of the woman and the video of the man walking each show a large number of interactions, some of which I feel are COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE (wishing someone a good day, asking for a phone number, asking how someone is doing) and some of which I feel may be offensive to some. But offensive is not the same as harassment. I didn't find any off the interactions to be obscene - nothing that wouldn't be shown on day time television.

Having said that, whatever the policy is meant to be, it needs to be the same, regardless of attractiveness, gender, and dress. If you want to propose laws to stop street harassment, that's great - and maybe you've done this already - but I'd love to see your criteria for determining what is and isn't street harassment. Do you feel that EVERY interaction in the woman walking video is harassment? Do you feel that EVERY interaction in the man walking video is harassment?

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

... Ah here, you don't want to be saying things like that. Personal responsibility? Good god man, what madness...

So if a woman walks along the street that is the shortest route between her home and the local shop, and she is subjected to several unwanted comments from strangers, some of them derogatory, she has failed in her responsibility to herself because she did not choose do go around the other three sides of the block to avoid the places where jerks are more likely to be found? Or is it her failure that she is offended by remarks that are intended to offend?

Wibbs

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So if a woman walks along the street that is the shortest route between her home and the local shop, and she is subjected to several unwanted comments from strangers, some of them derogatory, she has failed in her responsibility to herself because she did not choose do go around the other three sides of the block to avoid the places where jerks are more likely to be found?

Pretty much. There are certain areas and streets in Dublin I would avoid if possible, especially at night. The risk of bumping into scumbags, even being assaulted by scumbags is higher. So I lessen my risk(as it is my risk of actual bodily assault is higher as a man anyway). Now if a bunch of scumbags jumps me and I end up with a beating, they are still 100% to blame, but I was being daft especially if I was trying to prove a point.

We live in an imperfect world. Yes we strive to better it and we have, but not at the cost of being naive hippies about it. You probably have theft insurance, a house alarm, locks, a car alarm etc. You don't figure "oh naughty people should just stop being naughty". You live in the real world where scum, like the poor are always with us and take appropriate precautions.

Wibbs

UCDVet wrote: »

I didn't find any off the interactions to be obscene - nothing that wouldn't be shown on day time television.

Eh, while some of the comments(hello etc) and a couple who appeared to be chuggers of some nature, the saddo who followed her for five minutes was very dodgy and bloody intimidating.

RobYourBuilder

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much. There are certain areas and streets in Dublin I would avoid if possible, especially at night. The risk of bumping into scumbags, even being assaulted by scumbags is higher.

I'm from the inner city but was moved to south-west Dublin as a teen. The 'burbs are a lot more dangerous. I'm in my twenties and live there with my partner and son. On Wednesday, we brought our dog out for a wander. I was wearing a deep parka jacket. A car drove by and threw a banger at me. It hit me back. Another half a yard higher it would have landed higher and in my hood. I'd have been seriously injured.

There are a load of assholes out there. They aren't just focusing on women.

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty much. There are certain areas and streets in Dublin I would avoid if possible, especially at night. The risk of bumping into scumbags, even being assaulted by scumbags is higher. So I lessen my risk(as it is my risk of actual bodily assault is higher as a man anyway). Now if a bunch of scumbags jumps me and I end up with a beating, they are still 100% to blame, but I was being daft especially if I was trying to prove a point.

We live in an imperfect world. Yes we strive to better it and we have, but not at the cost of being naive hippies about it. You probably have theft insurance, a house alarm, locks, a car alarm etc. You don't figure "oh naughty people should just stop being naughty". You live in the real world where scum, like the poor are always with us and take appropriate precautions.

The behaviours against which you take precuations are illegal, and if the perpetrators are caught they are subject to sanctions. In essence, you are arguing that certain classes of unwelcome, sometimes intimidatory, behaviour should be permitted.

UCDVet

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, while some of the comments(hello etc) and a couple who appeared to be chuggers of some nature, the saddo who followed her for five minutes was very dodgy and bloody intimidating.

Agreed - it seemed very dodgy....but the guy was clearly walking down the street, the girl passed him, and he kept walking down the street. A man continued walking down the street (a public street), in the same direction, as some girl for four or five minutes. I'm not sure that should be considered harassment.

P. Breathnach

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

...
There are a load of assholes out there. They aren't just focusing on women.

That's true. Some of them are quite indiscriminate. But certain groups in society are more often the targets of unwelcome behaviour.

Wibbs

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

There are a load of assholes out there. They aren't just focusing on women.

Oh sure and statistically young men are the demographic most at risk of physical assault. However the catcalling from strangers passing comment is much more focused on women. Even personal experience would confirm that. It's also more widely focused. A bloke dressed like a goth or somesuch that stands out will get shouts of "wanker!" etc from passing cars or scumbags on corners, but pretty much all women from 9 to 90 short, tall, fat, thin will get more unwanted comments as an average. A bloke has to generally stand out in some way to be targeted by your mouthbreathing scum, women just have to be women.

P. Breathnach

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, while some of the comments(hello etc) and a couple who appeared to be chuggers of some nature, the saddo who followed her for five minutes was very dodgy and bloody intimidating.

Should the law take an interest in such behaviour?

UCDVet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The behaviours against which you take precuations are illegal, and if the perpetrators are caught they are subject to sanctions. In essence, you are arguing that certain classes of unwelcome, sometimes intimidatory, behaviour should be permitted.

Eh - I avoid Grafton street because I don't want to be annoyed by chuggers and street performers. Both of which are legal as far as I know.

Wibbs

UCDVet wrote: »

Agreed - it seemed very dodgy....but the guy was clearly walking down the street, the girl passed him, and he kept walking down the street. A man continued walking down the street (a public street), in the same direction, as some girl for four or five minutes. I'm not sure that should be considered harassment.

We must have watched a different video. He is clearly keeping step with her and within her personal space. He engages her more than once too. If I as a bloke were in her position I'd be intimidated and TBH if I was bigger than him/reckoned I could take him, I'd probably get shouty if not more.

UCDVet

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh sure and statistically young men are the demographic most at risk of physical assault. However the catcalling from strangers passing comment is much more focused on women. Even personal experience would confirm that. It's also more widely focused. A bloke dressed like a goth or somesuch that stands out will get shouts of "wanker!" etc from passing cars or scumbags on corners, but pretty much all women from 9 to 90 short, tall, fat, thin will get more unwanted comments as an average. A bloke has to generally stand out in some way to be targeted by your mouthbreathing scum, women just have to be women.

The people who filmed the woman walking claim they had 'over 100' comments in all, though not all were included in the video. The man walking video was 3 hours and claim they had 'over 30 comments'.

So at least with the evidence I've seen here, there doesn't seem to be much difference between men and women.

One eyed Jack

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So if a woman walks along the street that is the shortest route between her home and the local shop, and she is subjected to several unwanted comments from strangers, some of them derogatory, she has failed in her responsibility to herself because she did not choose do go around the other three sides of the block to avoid the places where jerks are more likely to be found? Or is it her failure that she is offended by remarks that are intended to offend?

Since we're engaging in hypotheticals, do you like Rob there suggest that she be offered a Garda escort? Everyone who feels uncomfortable in society be entitled to and provided with a Garda escort?

I'm all for helping people to feel safer in our society, which is why I'm completely against enabling their fears and allowing them to become irrational fears.

There's a point where you have to balance the greater good of society against the greater good of the individual, and individuals have to learn to cope in the world without needing society to hold their hand for them.

We make allowances for children and we don't let them walk to school on their own, because while we trust our children to be able to cross the road using the safe cross code, we don't trust drivers on the road during morning rush hour not to be tempted to break a red light. It'd be nice if we could trust that they won't, but how realistic is that?

Should we call for all the streets to be cordoned off so our children can walk to school safely? No, because that would be instilling an attitude in children that the world revolves around them, and everyone else in society will put themselves out for that child's benefit. The more practical solution is to teach children to be conscious and considerate of of other people in society and they have to allow for the fact that not everyone abides by the rules, but that doesn't mean that they should be entitled to break the rules just because someone else does.

That means if someone makes them feel uncomfortable, they don't have a right to go over and box the head off them, they have to think of their own personal safety first, no matter what Internet strangers tell them about their 'rights', that give no regard to their responsibility towards themselves and towards other people in society.

Otherwise, you'll end up with some people thinking they're 'entitled' to do what they like, which is where the entitlement mentality of the people who street call and harass people on the street comes from - they believe they're entitled to do it, and to hell with what you think, they're not interested in what you think or how you feel about their behaviour.

Wibbs

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Should the law take an interest in such behaviour?

When it's clear intimidation yes. Like the law has some coverage on aggressive begging for example. Taking that video that particular saddo should have his collar felt by the law. A bloke saying hi shouldn't. In any event proving "intimidation" or more, "offence" would be extremely difficult and going down the road of "well I personally felt intimidated/offended" would be a road to daftness.

UCDVet

Wibbs wrote: »

We must have watched a different video. He is clearly keeping step with her and within her personal space. He engages her more than once too. If I as a bloke were in her position I'd be intimidated and TBH if I was bigger than him/reckoned I could take him, I'd probably get shouty if not more.

At 0:51 he says, 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright' - he's already walking and she is coming up from behind him. They are clearly going in the same direction.

At 0:55 the text says 'Same guy - has been walking silently alongside her for two minutes'

At 1:06 the text says '(Five minutes)'

From the video I see - he spoke to her once when she first passed him. He silently continued the same direction he was going before he spoke to her. He didn't engage her again, but continued to walk alongside her, on a public street, for five minutes.

At 0:57 he passed between the girl in black and the lady in a hat - the spacing between him and the girl is about the same as him and the lady in the hat. If he's violating one of their personal space, it seems he'd be violating both of their personal space.

It's a little creepy - but I don't think it's harassment, illegal or something that should be reported to the police.

Wibbs

UCDVet wrote: »

So at least with the evidence I've seen here, there doesn't seem to be much difference between men and women.

To my mind you can pretty much write off both Tube vids and vids like it as having documentary bias. They've set out their conclusions and are out to prove them.

Do men get guff on the street? Of course they do and the more they stand out from the norm, the more guff they'll tend to receive. Just as men are more likely to be physically assaulted. My point is that on this particular catcalling front women get it notably more and don't have to stand out to get it. Ask a bloke who likes to jog of an evening how many times he's encountered comments from men or women in passing. Ask a women who likes to jog of an evening the same question. I'll bet the farm the woman will have a lot more experiences of that nature.

kiffer

UCDVet wrote: »

Eh - I avoid Grafton street because I don't want to be annoyed by chuggers and street performers. Both of which are legal as far as I know.

Now, imagine if every six minutes you encountered a chugger no matter which street you went down.
They are already annoying enough for you to avoid one street, what if there was one on almost every street?

osarusan

I have to say, I don't really understand your post.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm all for helping people to feel safer in our society, which is why I'm completely against enabling their fears and allowing them to become irrational fears.

What are the irrational fears that would develop if a relevant law were passed (that are not already irrational fears)?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We make allowances for children and we don't let them walk to school on their own, because while we trust our children to be able to cross the road using the safe cross code, we don't trust drivers on the road during morning rush hour not to be tempted to break a red light. It'd be nice if we could trust that they won't, but how realistic is that?

This is what laws are for - to recognise the fact that we can't trust everybody to do the right thing all the time. How is this different?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should we call for all the streets to be cordoned off so our children can walk to school safely? No, because that would be instilling an attitude in children that the world revolves around them, and everyone else in society will put themselves out for that child's benefit.

No we shouldn't, but we do have laws in place to punish drivers who drive dangerously. Why not take the same attitude here - 'we can't give you an escort everywhere, but we can punish those who intimidate you.'

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Otherwise, you'll end up with some people thinking they're 'entitled' to do what they like, which is where the entitlement mentality of the people who street call and harass people on the street comes from - they believe they're entitled to do it, and to hell with what you think, they're not interested in what you think or how you feel about their behaviour.

But these people who street call and harass people are already doing this and don't give a crap about how people feel - in the absence of a law, so how could the introduction of one have a negative effect?

If a law were passed, what is the 'entitlement' you are worried about? Who are you talking about, and what do you think they'd feel intitled to?

UCDVet

Wibbs wrote: »

To my mind you can pretty much write off both Tube vids and vids like it as having documentary bias. They've set out their conclusions and are out to prove them.

Do men get guff on the street? Of course they do and the more they stand out from the norm, the more guff they'll tend to receive. Just as men are more likely to be physically assaulted. My point is that on this particular catcalling front women get it notably more and don't have to stand out to get it. Ask a bloke who likes to jog of an evening how many times he's encountered comments from men or women in passing. Ask a women who likes to jog of an evening the same question. I'll bet the farm the woman will have a lot more experiences of that nature.

Ignoring the videos - anecdotally, I'd agree.

Though, in my limited experience, I think women (in general) are much more likely to receive compliments (however misguided, rude, and offensive they might be - someone yelling 'Nice Ass' is a compliment). As a (not particularly attractive guy), while I rarely get comments when I run - they are universally of a negative nature (IE - 'Keep running ******').

P. Breathnach

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Since we're engaging in hypotheticals, do you like Rob there suggest that she be offered a Garda escort? Everyone who feels uncomfortable in society be entitled to and provided with a Garda escort?

I'm all for helping people to feel safer in our society, which is why I'm completely against enabling their fears and allowing them to become irrational fears....

I don't think we are engaging in hypotheticals. I took my question from what was described in the Belgian video posted in this thread, where such strategies were discussed.

And I'm not daft. Of course it is not possible to provide evrybody with a police escort. There are other ways to police behaviour that is contrary to law: occasional visible police presence where the behaviour might occur; plain-clothes police patrolling and dealing directly with people who break whatever law there might be; accepting complaints from members of the public and initiating prosecutions where there is sufficient evidence of serious wrong-doing.

Not all the fears engendered are irrational.

Micky Dolenz

Catcalling and wolf whistling really is an appalling way to behave.

Was at a boards beers in Galway city centre a while back and while a small group of us moved to another pub, we came across three lads who shouted across the street to the ladies in our company. And they were the ones who took offence when I pointed out how classy they were

Kinda reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3d4tD8tZIU

kiffer

UCDVet wrote: »

At 0:51 he says, 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright' - he's already walking and she is coming up from behind him. They are clearly going in the same direction.

At 0:55 the text says 'Same guy - has been walking silently alongside her for two minutes'

At 1:06 the text says '(Five minutes)'

From the video I see - he spoke to her once when she first passed him. He silently continued the same direction he was going before he spoke to her. He didn't engage her again, but continued to walk alongside her, on a public street, for five minutes.

At 0:57 he passed between the girl in black and the lady in a hat - the spacing between him and the girl is about the same as him and the lady in the hat. If he's violating one of their personal space, it seems he'd be violating both of their personal space.

It's a little creepy - but I don't think it's harassment, illegal or something that should be reported to the police.

Sorry, are we watching the same video?
If a stranger fell into step with me for 5 minutes I'd think it pretty odd. He is clearly deliberately matching speed with her.
If someone did this to me I would either speed up a little, or slow down a little and if they matched speed again I'd be telling them to f$*k right off.
If it was for a short distance or in a crowd where everyone is moving at the same speed it would be different but 5 minutes is a long time for this kind of crap. Heck 30 seconds would have been more than a coincidence.

UCDVet

kiffer wrote: »

Now, imagine if every six minutes you encountered a chugger no matter which street you went down.
They are already annoying enough for you to avoid one street, what if there was one on almost every street?

I'd be annoyed.

It's unlikely that you'd ever encounter such a uniform distribution of, well, anything. Chuggers are always going to focus on high traffic areas, and people approaching you or commenting on you is almost always going to happen at a higher rate in densely populated areas.

So, regardless of how many chuggers there are, there will still be some streets with a lot of them and some streets with very few of them.

I also dislike children (who behave poorly or loudly), and I avoid places that are likely to have a lot of children (since most behave poorly and/or loudly). Sometimes, despite my best efforts, I end up seated next to a small child at a restaurant or on a plane....and it annoys me.

Hell, to be honest, I'm mildly annoyed when someone sits down next to me on DublnBus. It's their right to do so, but it does make me feel uncomfortable. I try to avoid the bus when I can, and I try to avoid peak times to avoid the uncomfortable situation (that *I* find uncomfortable, even though many people don't mind it).

Living in a society means dealing with other people. We should have laws to protect us from extreme behaviour - but I wouldn't support a law banning all chuggers, all street performers, all religious evangelists, all salesmen, all children, and everyone who wants to sit next to be one Dublin Bus....even though all of those things annoy me and make me uncomfortable.

UCDVet

kiffer wrote: »

Sorry, are we watching the same video?
If a stranger fell into step with me for 5 minutes I'd think it pretty odd. He is clearly deliberately matching speed with her.
If someone did this to me I would either speed up a little, or slow down a little and if they matched speed again I'd be telling them to f$*k right off.
If it was for a short distance or in a crowd where everyone is moving at the same speed it would be different but 5 minutes is a long time for this kind of crap. Heck 30 seconds would have been more than a coincidence.

I agreed that it was 'pretty odd'.
I disagreed that it was harassment.

Harassment
It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive

It's very hard to guess someone's motive. What we know is what happened. We know he said, 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright'. Do I believe that was intended to disturb or upset the girl? I do not. I think he genuinely would like to talk to her.

They were clearly both going the same direction. Did he alter his speed to match hers? Yes, it seems so.

Did he say to himself, 'I'm gonna walk the same speed as this girl to DISTURB THE HELL OUT OF HER'....I don't think so.

I think he probably thought, 'That girl is hot, did she hear what I said? Should I talk to her again? Did she ignore me? She seemed pretty cute....hmmm....I wish I weren't so socially awkward, she probably isn't interested in me anyway. Or maybe she just didn't hear me. I could talk to her again, maybe I should ask her where she is going? Nah, that's stupid....hmmm....oh screw this, I'll just keep walking'.

We *know* he didn't say anything else to her. We know he didn't assault her. We don't know if she changed directions and he followed or if they just walked the same direction for five minutes. This was one thing he did, it wasn't a repeated activity. She didn't indicate that she was uncomfortable or violating her personal space.

Creepy? Yes
Awkward? Yes
Unusual? Yes

Criminal? I don't believe so.

kiffer

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd be annoyed.

It's unlikely that you'd ever encounter such a uniform distribution of, well, anything. Chuggers are always going to focus on high traffic areas, and people approaching you or commenting on you is almost always going to happen at a higher rate in densely populated areas.

So, regardless of how many chuggers there are, there will still be some streets with a lot of them and some streets with very few of them.

I also dislike children (who behave poorly or loudly), and I avoid places that are likely to have a lot of children (since most behave poorly and/or loudly). Sometimes, despite my best efforts, I end up seated next to a small child at a restaurant or on a plane....and it annoys me.

Hell, to be honest, I'm mildly annoyed when someone sits down next to me on DublnBus. It's their right to do so, but it does make me feel uncomfortable. I try to avoid the bus when I can, and I try to avoid peak times to avoid the uncomfortable situation (that *I* find uncomfortable, even though many people don't mind it).

Living in a society means dealing with other people. We should have laws to protect us from extreme behaviour - but I wouldn't support a law banning all chuggers, all street performers, all religious evangelists, all salesmen, all children, and everyone who wants to sit next to be one Dublin Bus....even though all of those things annoy me and make me uncomfortable.

Ah sure how could kids annoy yeh, they're grand like.

Yeah, in the many chuggers example they wouldn't be evenly distributed but they would change streets at random and over a week you'd encounter an average of one every six minutes. You can't just avoid a few streets. I think I'd snap after about 5 or 6 weeks.
You turn a corner and there's the 3rd guy today, smiling and you think do I know this guy... and then it's "Hi can I talk to you for a second about getting me a commission?"... no.
5 minutes later, turn a corner boom some randomer steps in your path, smiles and says "Hi, have you heard of the Hanley Centre?"...
I already have a number of anti chugger strategies in place... if they were larger and randomly distrusted group I wouldn't be too happy.

bb1234567

Am I the only one that rarely if ever sees this happen in Ireland ? I'm guessing it's mostly an American thing but I've never seen a girl get a cat call from a randomer on the street here. I have some very pretty female friends and whenever I go into town with them they don't get cat calls or winks or whistles and a random guy would never just come up to her and chat her up .
The only times I see things like the above happen are in temple bar after 10 pm when everyone's drunk.

Maybe America is just a way sleezier place than Ireland ?

Pat Mustard

kiffer wrote: »

Sorry, are we watching the same video?
If a stranger fell into step with me for 5 minutes I'd think it pretty odd. He is clearly deliberately matching speed with her.
If someone did this to me I would either speed up a little, or slow down a little and if they matched speed again I'd be telling them to f$*k right off.
If it was for a short distance or in a crowd where everyone is moving at the same speed it would be different but 5 minutes is a long time for this kind of crap. Heck 30 seconds would have been more than a coincidence.

That video was very contrived.

Like you, if that happened to me, the first thing that I'd do would be to increase pace. Anyone who carries on nonchalantly with some weirdo shadowing them needs their head examined, under normal circumstances.

Also, perhaps it is cultural bias against forward Americans on my part, but it struck me that a number of the guys in those videos were just weirdos, attempting to strike up unwelcome conversation, out of the blue. In my opinion, you get more weirdos in large cities because they can thrive there. If somebody tried that carry on in some small Irish town, it simply wouldn't be accepted.

kiffer

UCDVet wrote: »

I agreed that it was 'pretty odd'.
I disagreed that it was harassment.



It's very hard to guess someone's motive. What we know is what happened. We know he said, 'Hello good morning. god bless you have a good day alright'. Do I believe that was intended to disturb or upset the girl? I do not. I think he genuinely would like to talk to her.

They were clearly both going the same direction. Did he alter his speed to match hers? Yes, it seems so.

Did he say to himself, 'I'm gonna walk the same speed as this girl to DISTURB THE HELL OUT OF HER'....I don't think so.

I think he probably thought, 'That girl is hot, did she hear what I said? Should I talk to her again? Did she ignore me? She seemed pretty cute....hmmm....I wish I weren't so socially awkward, she probably isn't interested in me anyway. Or maybe she just didn't hear me. I could talk to her again, maybe I should ask her where she is going? Nah, that's stupid....hmmm....oh screw this, I'll just keep walking'.

We *know* he didn't say anything else to her. We know he didn't assault her. We don't know if she changed directions and he followed or if they just walked the same direction for five minutes. This was one thing he did, it wasn't a repeated activity. She didn't indicate that she was uncomfortable or violating her personal space.

Creepy? Yes
Awkward? Yes
Unusual? Yes

Criminal? I don't believe so.

I agree that often we see people attributing intentions to people that don't necessarily apply.
But that doesn't mean that it isn't harassment.
For example, a number of people have been saying that the men in the video were motivated by an intention to make the woman uncomfortable.
I don't think this is true, and I see some real leaps of logic with this intention falicey...
unrelated example, get delayed going to a job interview, get home after the interview, asked how it went say "not great, I was delayed and was late so I got a bit flustered..." get iinterrupted "ah, you didn't really want the job so you self sabotaged".
"actually there was a 5 car pile up on the motorway, when I left the house I was 30 minutes earlier than I needed to be".

Where was I?
Look a stalkers intention may be to learn about you and keep you safe and have you realise that they love you and that one day you will fall in love with them... not to scare the **** out of you and make your life a lving hell... but if they are in your garden at five am stealing laundry you accidentally left out over night then their intentions mean **** all.

Five minutes of walking lock step with someone you just failed to hit on, who clearly had no interest in talking is creepy. But 5 minutes makes it on going and moves it from an annoyinf approach into clearly harassment.

I'm pretty awkward, and terrible at chatting up women, and I've ended up in the sort of "how do I leave and save face" type situation... but I don't believe someone who can cold approach someone with a don't talk to me look on her face wouldn't just go "ooops" and walk off. Or walk faster. Or walk slower.
I think he's twigged something odd is going on. Maybe he spotted the camera, or just that she isn't reacting at all to anyone and he wants to see how it pans out.
Bo matter what the reason the lock step is not just awkwardness.

Pick a random man, say "Hi", and fall into step with him.
In fact im going to assume there are prank videos of this and I'll go look for some.

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

I have to say, I don't really understand your post.

What are the irrational fears that would develop if a relevant law were passed (that are not already irrational fears)?

The passing of the law itself would be accommodating people's irrational fears. If I'm walking down the street and I'm caught up in a rush of people, I immediately feel intimidated, I feel threatened. I feel surrounded and caged in. Do I suddenly have a right to call Store St. Garda station and tell them that I need a Garda escort at my location? Do I have a right to shout 'STOP!', and expect everyone should stop going about their business, in order that I can go about my business?

No, I have a responsibility for my own personal safety to take whatever reasonable measures are deemed necessary to extricate myself from the situation. It can be as simple as crossing the street to get out of the rush. Yes, it's me putting an imposition on myself, but my personal safety should be my paramount concern that supercedes what I feel should be my right to impose my will on other people in order for me to feel safer.

This is what laws are for - to recognise the fact that we can't trust everybody to do the right thing all the time. How is this different?

No we shouldn't, but we do have laws in place to punish drivers who drive dangerously. Why not take the same attitude here - 'we can't give you an escort everywhere, but we can punish those who intimidate you.'

That reassurance isn't much good to me if I use the safe cross code and a driver comes out of nowhere, speeding, breaks a red light and leaves me a quadriplegic. I'm not willing to take that risk and put my personal safety in the hands of strangers. Punishing people who break the law doesn't reverse the damage already done to me because I thought I would be safe.

As much respect as I have for the law, and as much faith as I have in the law, I know all too well that 'crime prevention' is nice in theory, but I would be foolish to think they could prevent me from feeling intimidated in that moment. They can only act after the fact, and knowing how under-resourced Gardai already are in this country, I don't expect that someone with 92 previous convictions is going to give a toss about conviction 93.

But these people who street call and harass people are already doing this and don't give a crap about how people feel - in the absence of a law, so how could the introduction of one have a negative effect?

It would instill in people a false sense of security, and for the perpetrators it would be like a badge of honour, the way they view ASBOs in the UK - young lads rack them up and they laugh at the law. They laugh at it because it's meaningless and ineffective. Meanwhile someone who has never been exposed to harassment before thinks the law is working great at protecting them, until they are harassed and then they realise just how futile the law is!

If a law were passed, what is the 'entitlement' you are worried about? Who are you talking about, and what do you think they'd feel intitled to?

I'm talking about people who are incredibly naive to think they should have no need to be aware of their surroundings, that they should have no need to be aware of the risks of their behaviour. This would stop them from engaging in risk assessment which would enable them to foresee the possible consequences of their behaviour. Therefore they cannot be blamed when something happens to them as they couldn't have foreseen the consequences of their behaviour. It takes a special sort of cnut to point out to a victim of a crime the things that I'm aware of that they couldn't have been, because they weren't putting their personal safety before their right to do what they like.

As an example, take the woman in the original video - she put herself at risk because she wanted to make a point. At no time whatsoever did she make any attempt to get away from the guy following her. All that video showed anyone is how to play a victim - put yourself in situations where your personal safety is at risk, do nothing when people impose themselves upon you, then complain after the fact as if there was nothing you could have done when something happened.

A wide open space like that and a guy following me like that for a good five minutes? First thing I'd be thinking is "fcuk the cameraman, I'm getting the fcuk outta here!", and I'd take every measure I could to extricate myself from the situation. The woman in the video didn't do that, and part of me can't help but wonder did she disregard her personal safety for the want of more dramatic footage?

It doesn't amaze me any more the stupidity of some people who will disregard any thought for their personal safety because they feel they should be entitled to put themselves in situations where a reasonable person wouldn't, for often times very little reward.