Sexy street harassment

denhaagenite

MadDog76 wrote: »

My point being while wolf-whistles, leering and flirty comments may be unpleasant or embarrassing etc. for some women they don't generally lead to any actual physical harm ......... ie these incidences are quite harmless yet some women react in a way over-the-top dramatic fashion as to suggest that they are/were in actual danger of being murdered and raped ......... in that order!

But we shouldn't be made to feel unpleasant or embarrassed. My dog walking route takes me on a path that's just below the motorway and sometimes cars or trucks beep at me. It's like they're trying to tell me that even by leaving the house I'm drawing unnecessary attention to myself. They get absolutely nothing out of it except making me feel like the jeans and jacket I'm wearing or the way I'm holding the dogs lead are particularly enticing and something I should change- obviously that last bit is a total over exaggeration in my case but is in fact the way someone else might feel. What is the point in doing it??

MadDog76

denhaagenite wrote: »

But we shouldn't be made to feel unpleasant or embarrassed. My dog walking route takes me on a path that's just below the motorway and sometimes cars or trucks beep at me. It's like they're trying to tell me that even by leaving the house I'm drawing unnecessary attention to myself. They get absolutely nothing out of it except making me feel like the jeans and jacket I'm wearing or the way I'm holding the dogs lead are particularly enticing and something I should change- obviously that last bit is a total over exaggeration in my case but is in fact the way someone else might feel. What is the point in doing it??

I agree ........... but my original post was in response to a lady who implied that this kind of behaviour usually leads to rape/murder ........ when in fact it usually doesn't.

I myself am a father, son, brother, husband, uncle etc. so I personally would never engage in this type of behaviour and (if in the company of one my female loved ones) respond to such disrespectful behaviour equally as disrespectfully towards any "man" who offends a lady in my company.

One eyed Jack

denhaagenite wrote: »

But we shouldn't be made to feel unpleasant or embarrassed. My dog walking route takes me on a path that's just below the motorway and sometimes cars or trucks beep at me. It's like they're trying to tell me that even by leaving the house I'm drawing unnecessary attention to myself. They get absolutely nothing out of it except making me feel like the jeans and jacket I'm wearing or the way I'm holding the dogs lead are particularly enticing and something I should change- obviously that last bit is a total over exaggeration in my case but is in fact the way someone else might feel. What is the point in doing it??

They get a laugh out of it for themselves, they feel better. They're not particularly concerned with how their behaviour makes you feel, unfortunately.

It's the same mentality as the "I have a right to approach someone to say hello", only thinking about what their rights are and what they're entitled to do. To be asked to consider how the other person might feel is an inconvenience to them, and like a spoilt child - they react like "I won't have anyone tell me what to do!"...

And then they complain if people are rude to them! They never think they might have been at fault at all for not considering the other person's rights, like the right to go about their business unhindered by unwelcome approaches from strangers.

Bhopkov

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They get a laugh out of it for themselves, they feel better. They're not particularly concerned with how their behaviour makes you feel, unfortunately.

It's the same mentality as the "I have a right to approach someone to say hello", only thinking about what their rights are and what they're entitled to do. To be asked to consider how the other person might feel is an inconvenience to them, and like a spoilt child - they react like "I won't have anyone tell me what to do!"...

And then they complain if people are rude to them! They never think they might have been at fault at all for not considering the other person's rights, like the right to go about their business unhindered by unwelcome approaches from strangers.

You don't have the right not to be approached by other people. You have the right to tell them to go away though or ignore them.

One eyed Jack

Bhopkov wrote: »

You don't have the right not to be approached by other people. You have the right to tell them to go away though or ignore them.

I never said I had the right not to be approached by other people? I said everyone has the right to go about their business unhindered by other people.

Other posters here though have tried to argue that I don't have the right to tell them to go away or that I don't have the right to ignore them as apparently to them that's ME being rude.

denhaagenite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They get a laugh out of it for themselves, they feel better. They're not particularly concerned with how their behaviour makes you feel, unfortunately.

It's the same mentality as the "I have a right to approach someone to say hello", only thinking about what their rights are and what they're entitled to do. To be asked to consider how the other person might feel is an inconvenience to them, and like a spoilt child - they react like "I won't have anyone tell me what to do!"...

And then they complain if people are rude to them! They never think they might have been at fault at all for not considering the other person's rights, like the right to go about their business unhindered by unwelcome approaches from strangers.

But people do have a right to approach someone to say hello especially when in a social setting like a bar. As outlined you have a right to respond any way you want to but their is a courteous manner of doing this, and one that is not courteous.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Other posters here though have tried to argue that I don't have the right to tell them to go away or that I don't have the right to ignore them as apparently to them that's ME being rude.

Just because you have the right to do it doesn't make it the right thing to do- if you respond in a negative tone or ignore someone who says hello to you, that is rude by todays standards.

masculinist

orubiru wrote: »

I wonder if anyone could comment on same gender harassment? I'm sure that it must as common in "gay" clubs and bars as it is in regular clubs and bars?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether it happens twice a year or twice a week: it's something that should never happen.
Nor should people be harassed in gay bars - again, frequency is not significant.

The frequency of sexual assault, sexual harassment domestic violence etc is significant for one important reason. It is important because feminist campaigners elsewhere successfully widened the definition of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault etc to exclude and target innocent men [interfering with due process on college campuses and going on about ''stare rape'' etc which is just psychotic paranoia] but ignoring lesbian victims and lesbian perpetrators. And just like here they have elected morons into office who do not understand statistics and who just want the easy way out without checking the facts.


The ultimate Irony for feminists who concentrate on female issues only so long as the perpetrator is male: Lesbians reporting that they'd been sexually assaulted/raped by other women - occur at a higher level than women in general reporting that they'd been raped by a man. 1-3 Lesbians will be raped or sexually assaulted by a woman. Meanwhile the greater macrocosm of women: even the most bull**** of twisted unfactchecked studies conducted says that 1-4 women will be raped or sexually assaulted by a man. If you degrade the definition of sexual assault to even wishing someone a 'good morning' but being male this is the kind of nonsense you arrive at

Domestic Violence

Women are perpetrators often as men.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf

286 sources on assaults on partners by women
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Women are more violent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

Domestic violence being equally committed by women, only males get arrested
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Men are over 40% of domestic abuse victims
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Male DV victims are discriminated against
http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VAWA-Discriminates-Against-Males.pdf

Gay and bisexual men experience abuse in intimate partner relationships at a
rate of 2 in 5, which is comparable to the amount of domestic violence experienced by heterosexual women.
https://www.uncfsp.org/projects/userfiles/File/DCE-STOP_NOW/NCADV_LGBT_Fact_Sheet.pdf

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner (1,5,6,13).
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

Men or DV is Not the leading cause of death among women under 50 but facts are not important for legislators
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

More DV facts
http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm


I can back all this up. And much much more. As you can see I provided links to research and facts. So you cannot just dismiss this with ignorance.

One eyed Jack

MadDog76 wrote: »

I said that most serial killers/rapists probably won't draw attention to themselves by initiating contact ......... although Ted Bundy would probably disagree with me!

My point being while wolf-whistles, leering and flirty comments may be unpleasant or embarrassing etc. for some women they don't generally lead to any actual physical harm ......... ie these incidences are quite harmless yet some women react in a way over-the-top dramatic fashion as to suggest that they are/were in actual danger of being murdered and raped ......... in that order!

They don't generally lead to any actual physical harm?

Well that's hardly reassuring, is it?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I agree ........... but my original post was in response to a lady who implied that this kind of behaviour usually leads to rape/murder ........ when in fact it usually doesn't.

I myself am a father, son, brother, husband, uncle etc. so I personally would never engage in this type of behaviour and (if in the company of one my female loved ones) respond to such disrespectful behaviour equally as disrespectfully towards any "man" who offends a lady in my company.

Again, hardly reassuring, and you can't say that for a fact unless you can read people's minds, and since nobody can read other people's minds, they don't know exactly the motivations behind another person's behaviour, and so they can only judge based on their experiences, and if their experiences with strangers cat-calling them, following them, etc have been negative, then it's understandable why they might form certain conclusions.

That's not being over-dramatic, that's just being wary of their personal safety based on their experiences. I've been mugged and assaulted on the street in the past while I was waiting for the bus one morning. The last question I asked the cab driver dropping me off was "Is it safe around here?", "You'll be grand" he said. Turned out he was wrong and I should have trusted my own judgement.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean anyone should ever be complacent about their personal safety. After the incident I was holed up in my apartment for a week, afraid to go out in public. I still get unnerved when strangers approach me on the street. It's instinct, I have to think to try to overcome that instinct, it's not something I can easily laugh off as "but sure I know generally speaking a stranger isn't going to attack me". Those sort of statements offer no reassurance at all to a person who has been in that situation, and that IS a fact.

gozunda

masculinist wrote: »

The frequency of sexual assault, sexual harassment domestic violence etc is significant for one important reason. It is important because feminist campaigners elsewhere successfully widened the definition of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault etc to exclude* and target innocent men [interfering with due process on college campuses and going on about ''stare rape'' etc which is just psychotic paranoia] but ignoring lesbian victims and lesbian perpetrators. And just like here they have elected morons into office who do not understand statistics and who just want the easy way out without checking the facts.

* I presume you mean 'include'?

I note you have mentioned this scenario of some (?) US college campuses adopting perceived anti men campus wide regulations previously. However I believe it is ambiguous to place these regulations as the same standard as statutory law. College campuses in the US and students unions here are enabled by governance to have their relevant student bodies vote on their own regulations. Such regulations do not negate state or national law.

As a polar opposite to the fairly extreme example given above we could take the example of Sharia law given by another poster

Semele wrote: »

The request for some sort of proof before your experience will be believed has an uncomfortable parallel with the way sexual assault cases are dealt with under sharia law, where the act has to have been witnessed (with the caveat that the statement of a female witness bears half the weight of that of a male witness) in order to be credible! Obviously it's not remotely the same level of severity and I'm not for a second equivocating the experience of a privileged western woman with that of a middle eastern woman under strict Islamic law, however it strikes me as being (scarily) on the same spectrum of thinking...

Such wrongs does not make dismissing street harassment or sexual violence right. The fact that such extremes exist do not negate that sexual violence against women is a relatively common phenomenon. Should we dismiss the voiced concerns of all woman concerning harassment because such extremes of reaction exist in other jurisdictions and other areas? I don't think so.

No one is saying that street harassment is only happening to woman but many woman do experience very real fear and intimidation when confronted by random street harassment. I will go with both with what women posters have posted here and from research in this area. [I am excluding harassment that occur in less likely threatening environments such as pubs and clubs where a concerned individual is more able to seek help in similar circumstances.]

masculinist wrote: »

The ultimate Irony for feminists who concentrate on female issues only so long as the perpetrator is male:

Tbh I think it is not useful to repeatedly go on about 'feminists' as if they are the perpetrators of such behaviour. Yes they are deeply worrying but so for example is Sharia law in my opinion. These extremes reactions should help enlighten more positive thinking about this issue and not cloud it further by polarising the issue at hand.

denhaagenite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don't generally lead to any actual physical harm?

Well that's hardly reassuring, is it?





Again, hardly reassuring, and you can't say that for a fact unless you can read people's minds, and since nobody can read other people's minds, they don't know exactly the motivations behind another person's behaviour, and so they can only judge based on their experiences, and if their experiences with strangers cat-calling them, following them, etc have been negative, then it's understandable why they might form certain conclusions.

That's not being over-dramatic, that's just being wary of their personal safety based on their experiences. I've been mugged and assaulted on the street in the past while I was waiting for the bus one morning. The last question I asked the cab driver dropping me off was "Is it safe around here?", "You'll be grand" he said. Turned out he was wrong and I should have trusted my own judgement.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean anyone should ever be complacent about their personal safety. After the incident I was holed up in my apartment for a week, afraid to go out in public. I still get unnerved when strangers approach me on the street. It's instinct, I have to think to try to overcome that instinct, it's not something I can easily laugh off as "but sure I know generally speaking a stranger isn't going to attack me". Those sort of statements offer no reassurance at all to a person who has been in that situation, and that IS a fact.

I think we can all agree that being approached by someone in a bar and being mugged on the street are two totally different situations. If you're traumatised enough by being mugged for that to have an impact on how you respond to someone in an innocent social interaction then you might benefit from having some therapy.

masculinist

gozunda wrote: »

* I presume you mean 'include'?

I note you have mentioned this scenario of some (?) US college campuses adopting perceived anti men campus wide regulations previously. However I believe it is ambiguous to place these regulations as the same standard as statutory law. College campuses in the US and students unions here are enabled by governance to have their relevant student bodies vote on their own regulations. Such regulations do not negate state or national law.

As a polar opposite to the fairly extreme example given above we could take the example of Sharia law given by another poster




Such wrongs does not make dismissing street harassment or sexual violence right. The fact that such extremes exist does not negate that sexual violence against women is a relatively common phenomenon. Should we dismiss the voiced concerns of all woman concerning harassment because such extremes of reaction exist in other jurisdictions and other areas? I don't think so.

No one is saying that street harassment is only happening to woman but many woman do experience very real fear and intimidation when confronted by random street harassment. I will go with both with what women posters have posted here and from research in this area. Btw I am excluding harassment that occur in less likely threatening environments such as pubs and clubs where a concerned individual is more able to seek help in similar circumstances.



Tbh I think it is not useful to repeatedly go on about 'feminists' as if they are the perpetrators of such behaviour. Yes they are deeply worrying but so for example is Sharia law in my opinion. These extremes reactions should help enlighten more positive thinking about this issue and not cloud it further by polarising the issue at hand.

Thanks for reading my post for a start. Let me explain how this works. Federal funding is cut to colleges which do not adopt this corruption of due process on college campuses. Anywhere else you would expect law enforcement to deal with rape accusations and criminal cases....not university tribunals with much weaker standards of 'proof' . Colleges need their funding to keep the doors open. And now despite cries of ''male privilege'' , most college students in the USA are now Female which of course will skew any student body votes.
The consequences are extremely severe. The expelled student falsely accused loses his future career and reputation. This has happened. This is is not fiction. And yes feminists are saying exactly that. They are targeting men in particular. Feminists successfully campaigned
to change the legal definition of rape to exclude raped men and boys.

http://permutationofninjas.org/post/74655593549/e-mail-rainn-on-saturday-march-15-2014

You have minors raped by much older women who gets pregnant and then are being forced to pay child support. You couldnt make this up. Men have been held at gunpoint by strange women who force them to have sex yet they cant press for rape charges thanks to feminist campaigners.


Now as to how helpful it is to mention feminists [I AM AN EGALITARIAN, everything I write is from an egalitarian point of view. I strongly believe in equality under the law for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender etc and I also believe this will never happen unless we identify this problem with feminism]... the problem here is that it is feminism which campaigned for this to happen. Not one feminist organization campaigned against it on the basis of 'whoa these are our sons, our husbands, our fathers' etc... not one. And American politics is so corrupt they cant see past the power of the lobby group. I see disturbing parallels here in Ireland. We too are cursed with incompetent corrupt politicians.


The DOE policy in practice: Caleb Warner was accused of rape and expelled from the University of North Dakota, then his accuser was charged with filing a false report. He remains expelled from his university

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/10/31/for-the-falsely-accusedmovingonfromrapistbrandingachallenge.html

This is just the first link which appeared in Google search.

One eyed Jack

denhaagenite wrote: »

But people do have a right to approach someone to say hello especially when in a social setting like a bar. As outlined you have a right to respond any way you want to but their is a courteous manner of doing this, and one that is not courteous.

Context is everything though in any given situation, and of course I'm initially courteous to anyone who approaches me in a bar (because I expect to be approached, I'm aware already of the likelihood that it's going to happen, so I'm comfortable with it), but it's when I perceive their motivations to be MORE than just an innocent chat or whatever that I can become uncomfortable. I already said it in a previous thread that I move off rather than get into it with them why I'm uncomfortable, or sometimes I'll tell them I'm not interested, and that's not being rude, but some posters here are keen to point out that I owe the other person engagement simply because they came over to me. I don't, I don't think anyone does. The responsibility is all on THAT person to guage whether I'm open to their approach or not.

Just because you have the right to do it doesn't make it the right thing to do- if you respond in a negative tone or ignore someone who says hello to you, that is rude by todays standards.

Context is important there I think. Otherwise you're leaving the way open for it to be argued that nobody has the right to choose how they respond to a stranger who imposes upon them. Just because someone thinks they're being polite, it doesn't automatically follow that I'll think the same way of them as they think of themselves. That's the sort of thinking that excuses the "I'm paying them a compliment, they should be grateful" mentality.

P. Breathnach

masculinist wrote: »

The frequency of sexual assault, sexual harassment domestic violence etc is significant for one important reason.<snipped for brevity - the post is still there to be read>.

None of what you say bears directly on my point: that every instance of harassment is wrong.

I'm not trying to defend or justify extremist feminists. Why would I? I'm not an extremist. You can't use the arguments or actions of extremists as being a valid basis on which to oppose temperate people.

masculinist

P. Breathnach wrote: »

None of what you say bears directly on my point: that every instance of harassment is wrong.

I'm not trying to defend or justify extremist feminists. Why would I? I'm not an extremist. You can't use the arguments or actions of extremists as being a valid basis on which to oppose temperate people.

I wish to God this was extremists but one seriously has to ask as an Egalitarian.

How is this all extremists when it has become enshrined in mainstream legislation ?

gozunda

masculinist wrote: »

Thanks for reading my post for a start. Let me explain how this works. Federal funding is cut to colleges which do not adopt this corruption of due process on college campuses. Anywhere else you would expect law enforcement to deal with rape accusations and criminal cases....not university tribunals with much weaker standards of 'proof' . Colleges need their funding to keep the doors open. And now despite cries of ''male privilege'' , most college students in the USA are now Female which of course will skew any student body votes.
The consequences are extremely severe. The expelled student falsely accused loses his future career and reputation. This has happened. This is is not fiction. And yes feminists are saying exactly that. They are targeting men in particular. Feminists successfully campaigned
to change the legal definition of rape to exclude raped men and boys.

http://permutationofninjas.org/post/74655593549/e-mail-rainn-on-saturday-march-15-2014

You have minors raped by much older women who gets pregnant and then are being forced to pay child support. You couldnt make this up. Men have been held at gunpoint by strange women who force them to have sex yet they cant press for rape charges thanks to feminist campaigners.

Now as to how helpful it is to mention feminists [I AM AN EGALITARIAN, everything I write is from an egalitarian point of view. I strongly believe in equality under the law for everyone regardless of race, color, religion, gender etc and I also believe this will never happen unless we identify this problem with feminism]... the problem here is that it is feminism which campaigned for this to happen. Not one feminist organization campaigned against it on the basis of 'whoa these are our sons, our husbands, our fathers' etc... not one. And American politics is so corrupt they cant see past the power of the lobby group. I see disturbing parallels here in Ireland. We too are cursed with incompetent corrupt politicians.


The DOE policy in practice: Caleb Warner was accused of rape and expelled from the University of North Dakota, then his accuser was charged with filing a false report. He remains expelled from his university

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/10/31/for-the-falsely-accusedmovingonfromrapistbrandingachallenge.html

This is just the first link which appeared in Google search.

Btw where is it that you say that Feminists have successfully campaigned
to change the legal definition of rape to exclude raped men and boys? Edit. - saw the reference - thanks. How do you think that compares with the definition of rape here btw?

Ok for a moment let us accept that feminists are running rampant through Us college campuses. And that this is a bad thing for men's rights.

Doing so we also have to accept that Sharia law and it's negation of women's rights is an equally bad thing.

On one hand we have extreme feminists and the other extreme Sharia law. Both which have have had negative consequences - one in the US - the other the Middle East - one which effects mainly men - the other which effects mainly women. In both situations we have a basic denigration of rights. How does this effect us here? I believe we should use such information to develop an approach in this country that does not deny any one their basic rights but does provide for a deterent for all those who would choose to deliberately harass others. Again I would identify the serious types of harassment and the provision of some basis where repeat perpetrators can be identified and dealt with. How? I don't really know. I am going through various information available atm but there appears to many grey areas tbh.

MadDog76

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don't generally lead to any actual physical harm?

Well that's hardly reassuring, is it?





Again, hardly reassuring, and you can't say that for a fact unless you can read people's minds, and since nobody can read other people's minds, they don't know exactly the motivations behind another person's behaviour, and so they can only judge based on their experiences, and if their experiences with strangers cat-calling them, following them, etc have been negative, then it's understandable why they might form certain conclusions.

That's not being over-dramatic, that's just being wary of their personal safety based on their experiences. I've been mugged and assaulted on the street in the past while I was waiting for the bus one morning. The last question I asked the cab driver dropping me off was "Is it safe around here?", "You'll be grand" he said. Turned out he was wrong and I should have trusted my own judgement.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean anyone should ever be complacent about their personal safety. After the incident I was holed up in my apartment for a week, afraid to go out in public. I still get unnerved when strangers approach me on the street. It's instinct, I have to think to try to overcome that instinct, it's not something I can easily laugh off as "but sure I know generally speaking a stranger isn't going to attack me". Those sort of statements offer no reassurance at all to a person who has been in that situation, and that IS a fact.

Like it or not, you are in the minority percentage-wise relating to interacting with a stranger versus such interactions leading to a physical attack ....... which also IS fact.

One eyed Jack

MadDog76 wrote: »

Like it or not, you are in the minority percentage-wise relating to interacting with a stranger versus such interactions leading to a physical attack ....... which also IS fact.

I acknowledge that of course I'm in a minority percentage, but that fact is rather difficult for me to ignore or play down simply because in your opinion it generally doesn't happen.

MadDog76

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I acknowledge that of course I'm in a minority percentage, but that fact is rather difficult for me to ignore or play down simply because in your opinion it generally doesn't happen.

I've been the victim of crime myself and it affected me deeply at the time but if I found it was still affecting my normal judgement after a period of time I would seek counselling as it's not a healthy way to live ..........

masculinist

gozunda wrote: »

On one hand we have extreme feminists and the other extreme Sharia law. Both which have have had negative consequences - one in the US - the other the Middle East - one which effects mainly men - the other which effects mainly women. In both situations we have a basic denigration of rights. How does this effect us here? I believe we should use such information to develop an approach in this country that does not deny any one their basic rights but does provide for a deterent for all those who would choose to deliberately harass others. Again I would identify the serious types of harassment and the provision of some basis where repeat perpetrators can be identified and dealt with. How? I don't really know. I am going through various information available atm but there appears to many grey areas tbh.

I support freedom of religion but there can only be one law in a sovereign country and thats not Sharia Law. The only hope is if common sense triumphs. Common sense = egalitarianism. The definition of Egalitarianism can never be twisted.
I will live my life as an egalitarian and call out nonsense when I see it.

America is a different country however ideas which get a foothold there usually end up being imported here and in the UK. You have Feminists here in Ireland preaching about how they wouldnt have a vote without feminism ... eh.... in reality after hundreds of years of disenfranchisement all Irish citizens regardless of gender got the right to vote in this Republic at the same time when the Republic was established. They swallow the dogma but they don't criticize it.
I want to see feminists calling out nonsense when they see it. They dont' . If a man says women should wear burkas .. are intellectually inferior etc I will call them out as morons. Women dont tend to do the same when feminists turn the whole of feminism which was justified in the 50s,60s and 70s into a rad fem nightmare first world problem joke it is today. If women did call out nonsense they wouldn't sit back while American campuses become a no go area for the civil rights of young men.

P. Breathnach

masculinist wrote: »

... I want to see feminists calling out nonsense when they see it. They dont' ....

That's a form of whataboutery. In any area, if an activist is trying to advance a position, you don't have a right to demand that he or she drop the business and go off and deal with something else just because you decide it should be promoted to the top of the agenda.

masculinist

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a form of whataboutery. In any area, if an activist is trying to advance a position, you don't have a right to demand that he or she drop the business and go off and deal with something else just because you decide it should be promoted to the top of the agenda.

Not at all. The clue to whataboutery is in the name '' what about something'' . I did not speculate 'what about' anything but instead referred to what actually is.

You can be a member of any club or society and have a great time but lets say .... purely for an example ...suddenly your new club or society friends say ''hey we are all going down to the city tonight to beat on some gays'' , what are you going to do ? You are going to probably going to call them out on this and cancel your membership. And with no hesitation about it. You are probably going to demand that they check their membership policies too which is what many football clubs have had to do when developing policies against racism , sexism etc. Many feminists claim that the definition of feminism is egalitarianism. The 'yesmeansyes' campus law which removes civil rights from men and boys among other things sets the record straight on this. The law is mainstream - they cant blame this on extremists. If feminists cared about what mainstream feminism stands for they would have opposed this. They didnt.They are responsible for their own reputation. Biased Videos like in the OP, real first world problems seem to be what feminism is all about these days. Meanwhile real egalitarian women are being stoned to death elsewhere. I will use the word 'Egalitarian' to describe what I stand for because with a good conscience I cannot use feminism.

denhaagenite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Context is everything though in any given situation, and of course I'm initially courteous to anyone who approaches me in a bar (because I expect to be approached, I'm aware already of the likelihood that it's going to happen, so I'm comfortable with it), but it's when I perceive their motivations to be MORE than just an innocent chat or whatever that I can become uncomfortable. I already said it in a previous thread that I move off rather than get into it with them why I'm uncomfortable, or sometimes I'll tell them I'm not interested, and that's not being rude, but some posters here are keen to point out that I owe the other person engagement simply because they came over to me. I don't, I don't think anyone does. The responsibility is all on THAT person to guage whether I'm open to their approach or not.





Context is important there I think. Otherwise you're leaving the way open for it to be argued that nobody has the right to choose how they respond to a stranger who imposes upon them. Just because someone thinks they're being polite, it doesn't automatically follow that I'll think the same way of them as they think of themselves. That's the sort of thinking that excuses the "I'm paying them a compliment, they should be grateful" mentality.

But I did contextualise it. Mugging at bus stop= not innocent social interaction. Approached at a bar in an overtly social situation= innocent social interaction. It seems we're saying the same thing but I'm listening and you're not.

Tbh I'd hate to be the shop assistant that approaches you though, from your depictions of situations here I really think your attitude might leave a lot to be desired. Did it ever occur to you that people might not be good at conveying or reading body language? Or that you're not an expert either?

KERSPLAT!

MOD

Thread is just going in circles at this stage

Closed