Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

Aurum

FortySeven wrote: »

I'd say the lack of the usual feminist apologists speaks volumes. They know to pick their battles .

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

ceadaoin.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Seen as men very rarely report violence by women how do yo know ? If my partner beat me I would not feel very forthcoming to goto the Garda/

Actually, studies have shown that men who experience domestic violence are more likely to call the police and more likely to press charges than women

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.9330&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Page 14)

Take Your Pants Off

BattleCorp wrote: »

What a pile of PC sh1te.

Political correctness?
Can someone explain to me whats this word actually means

D0NNELLY

Hate crime? Love crime surely

Calahonda52

Greentopia wrote: »

I don't want that type of "admiration" shouted at me in the street by some knuckle dragging neanderthal and I don't know any woman who would. There are respectful ways of telling a woman she is attractive and cat calling is not one of them.

The problem is, respectful or not, if it is deemed "unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement" then its a hate crime so we need a list of
pre approved:
respectful ways of telling a woman she is attractive
that
pass the
unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement test.

Good luck with that list

FortySeven

Aurum wrote: »

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

Aurum

Aurum wrote: »

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

Shush with your common sense and perspective!

There's no place for that kind of talk on these threads donchakno

FishOnABike

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Actually, studies have shown that men who experience domestic violence are more likely to call the police and more likely to press charges than women
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloadable?doi=10.1.1.468.9330&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Page 14)

Actually an Irish study http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Gda%20Maeve%20Aldridge.pdf shows that men who experience domestic violence are far less likely to report it than women.

Numerous studies have shown that women have the same propensity for instigating domestic violence as men. It is almost 50/50 with women slightly more frequently being the instigator. Women are also more likely to use a weapon. Yet men are far less likely to report suffering domestic violence.

This should tell us there is something wrong with adopting a gendered approach to something which is not based on gender.

steddyeddy

FortySeven wrote: »

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

Indeed. This is catering to a soecial interests group. Like I said it's the same as legislating for racism against one race.

dr.fuzzenstein

FishOnABike wrote: »

Actually an Irish study http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Gda%20Maeve%20Aldridge.pdf shows that men who experience domestic violence are far less likely to report it than women.

Numerous studies have shown that women have the same propensity for instigating domestic violence as men. It is almost 50/50 with women slightly more frequently being the instigator. Women are also more likely to use a weapon. Yet men are far less likely to report suffering domestic violence.

This should tell us there is something wrong with adopting a gendered approach to something which is not based on gender.

Men don't report it because they will be laughed out of the Garda station.
My friend was scratched across the face by his partner and was told "would you ever cop on to yourself" at the Garda station. He later asked a Gard what would happen if she had made the same complaint, "we would have come an arrested you".
That's how it goes in this country.

Aurum

FortySeven wrote: »

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

If it is well publicized (partly using WA's resources) more women will report incidents that they would otherwise just live with, the police force will get a much better overview of how many victims there are, how frequently these incidents occur and where they occur, and importantly get a broader view of the types and severity of incidents that occur, i.e. is most of it shouting and verbal abuse, are physical threats and intimidation involved, is public transport a particular problem or is it about the same as the rest of the city, what are the ages of the victims (e.g. are teenage girls being disproportionately affected). If there was a particularly nasty incident, which was, however, not criminal, the victim might be more likely to file a report and then benefit from their support service.

The WA, despite their apparently considerable resources, can't fabricate victims of harassment, the only way in which they could exert pressure (and your suggestion about this is, of course, total supposition) would be to require the police force to properly carry out the new programme to which it has publicly committed.

selastich2

selastich2 wrote: »

TRIGGER WARNING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRYEo8EFkc

Wasn't there another viral video of woman hit man, croed doesn;t react. man hits woman, everyone goes spare?

On a mental level, I totally agree with you that nobody has the right to beat another person. It's utterly hypocritical that our society tends to deem a female-on-male slap in the face relatively acceptable.

Nevertheless, that video you posted get's super-uncomfortable at 1:55, when the male on female violence starts.

You cannot ignore (and feminists should not ignore) the reality that men tend to be stronger, and hit harder, than women. Women are the weaker sex, in general. I couldn't even watch the whole of the video, so extreme was the difference between the violence perpetrated by women and that perpetrated by men. in every case (until I stopped the video), the women were knocked to the ground, whereas men were only ever 'slapped'.

Violence is never okay, but I think we have to be pragmatic, and say that male violence against women usually deserves special stigma.

I wouldn't get into a ring with Katie Taylor, mind you, but on the same basis, she wouldn't have a chance against a fairly average male professional.

There's quite a good illustration of this in tennis.

Jannick Noah once played a tennis match against Justine Hennan, whilst he wore a dress. He mostly played trick shots and slices, according to reports, and still he beat her (...in the sporting sense, you understand).

The point being, that male on female violence deserves its stigmatic status in our society. It's not unlike a grown 'tank' of a man beating up a slinky teenager. It's almost nauseating to see it.

steddyeddy

Aurum wrote: »

If it is well publicized (partly using WA's resources) more women will report incidents that they would otherwise just live with, the police force will get a much better overview of how many victims there are, how frequently these incidents occur and where they occur, and importantly get a broader view of the types and severity of incidents that occur, i.e. is most of it shouting and verbal abuse, are physical threats and intimidation involved, is public transport a particular problem or is it about the same as the rest of the city, what are the ages of the victims (e.g. are teenage girls being disproportionately affected). If there was a particularly nasty incident, which was, however, not criminal, the victim might be more likely to file a report and then benefit from their support service.

The WA, despite their apparently considerable resources, can't fabricate victims of harassment, the only way in which they could exert pressure (and your suggestion about this is, of course, total supposition) would be to require the police force to properly carry out the new programme to which it has publicly committed.

Do you not think harrassment against all genders should be a hate crime? The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

FishOnABike

Erin Pizzey - founder of the first women's refuge. Subsequently boycotted, isolated and threatened by militant feminists for publishing her research which showed that most of the women were equally as violent or more violent than their husbands. Ref. Prone To Violence by Erin Pizzey and Jeff Shapiro https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0600205517?vs=1

Only 4% to 5% of domestic violence is the stereotypical wife-beating husband. Yet this is where most of the resources are focused and funded. The problem will never be solved when 95% of it is largely unacknowledged and ignored.

Aurum

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you not think harrassment against all genders should be a hate crime? The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

As I said before, hate crime is relevant when there is a criminal act combined with a specific form of motivation. It was committed because the person was of a specific race, disabled etc. The reason, I would imagine, that gender is not included in official hate crime legislation in the UK is because it would be very difficult to prove that a crime was carried out purely because the victim was a woman. However, women are disproportionately, and more severely affected, by sexual harassment, so it was incorporated into the hate crime provision in Nottingham as a way of highlighting this and gathering more data, and perhaps to act as a deterrent. I'll mention again, no one will be prosecuted as a result of this change.

The reason why hate crime provisions would almost never work for men is because it would be incredibly rare for a man to be criminally injured by a woman purely because of the man's gender (rather than during an argument etc.) Certainly not frequently enough to require specific legal protection.

RDM_83 again

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

What I would be curious is if they actually do push this whats it going to look like? I am not sure of the demographics of Nottingham but if its like the British midlands city a female of friend of mine went to uni in its not going to be White British men arrested if they focus on street harassment. Additionally as far as I remember they already a program there to get police involved in harrasment without the "hate crime" thing/
What would be the liberal response when its a ton of British asians being charged with this crime? the optics won't look good

Aurum

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What I would be curious is if they actually do push this whats it going to look like? I am not sure of the demographics of Nottingham but if its like the British midlands city a female of friend of mine went to uni in its not going to be White British men arrested if they focus on street harassment. Additionally as far as I remember they already a program there to get police involved in harrasment without the "hate crime" thing/
What would be the liberal response when its a ton of British asians being charged with this crime? the optics won't look good

It's not a crime. The Nottingham police force isn't usurping Parliament and amending existing legislation. No one will be charged because it's not a crime.

Aurum

Aurum wrote: »

It's not a crime. The Nottingham police force isn't usurping Parliament and amending existing legislation. No one will be charged because it's not a crime.

It is a crime.

They are amending their interpretation of the relevant Act to include unwanted verbal communication. An amended interpretation is a de facto amendment of a legislative act.

Criminal law should require clearly delineated boundaries between socially undesirable, but lawful, behaviour vs unlawful behaviour.

It's a bit like 'Scope Creep' in risk theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

Aurum

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is a crime.

They are amending their interpretation of the relevant Act to include unwanted verbal communication. An amended interpretation is a de facto amendment of a legislative act.

Criminal law should require clearly delineated boundaries between socially undesirable, but lawful, behaviour vs unlawful behaviour.

It's a bit like 'Scope Creep' in risk theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant. A person can't be guilty of a crime just because they committed an otherwise non-criminal act in Nottingham.

FortySeven

Nice to see the specially trained officers received their training from the women's center. Feminists now training police forces?

FortySeven

Aurum wrote: »

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant. A person can't be guilty of a crime just because they committed an otherwise non-criminal act in Nottingham.

Yes they can, if it is proven it was done out of misogyny. It is then a hate crime and can be dealt with in various ways including asbos, termination of tenancy etc. Or court.

It's all on the police force website.

Aurum

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes they can, if it is proven it was done out of misogyny. It is then a hate crime and can be dealt with in various ways including asbos, termination of tenancy etc. Or court.

It's all on the police force website.

A hate crime in the UK is not just an act that was sexist, racist etc. It has to be a criminal act that was motivated by this. The hate crime part means that a person can be sentenced more severely because of their motivation. Something like an unwanted approach is not a crime so the motivation is irrelevant. They can't be tried for anything. One police department in one city cannot change the law.

There is a pretty comprehensive guide, including the difference between a hate incident and hate crime in the UK, on Citizens Advice and the official website.

Tombi!

Tombi! wrote: »

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say context might be relevant?
Asking your one at the bus stop if she'd like to grab lunch isn't going to get you nicked.
Telling your one at the bus stop she has a nice pair on her, that might get you in trouble.

But sure feck it, let's all have a go at the women.

The thing is Tombi though it depends on the person or 'victim' in question and their level of tolerance. By and large 99% of women are decent and will use their common sense but there is always one nutcase who will love to dramatise things.

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing is Tombi though it depends on the person or 'victim' in question and their level of tolerance. By and large 99% of women are decent and will use their common sense but there is always one nutcase who will love to dramatise things.

I wager this has spread around and now we will be seeing criminal cases from colleges. There are plenty of people looking to take offence and this laws interpretation gives them power.

FortySeven

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I wager this has spread around and now we will be seeing criminal cases from colleges. There are plenty of people looking to take offence and this laws interpretation gives them power.

The college started it with the aid of women's charity. They wrote the study and were involved in the police training. The gender studies department no doubt.

Letree

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

On a mental level, I totally agree with you that nobody has the right to beat another person. It's utterly hypocritical that our society tends to deem a female-on-male slap in the face relatively acceptable.

Nevertheless, that video you posted get's super-uncomfortable at 1:55, when the male on female violence starts.

You cannot ignore (and feminists should not ignore) the reality that men tend to be stronger, and hit harder, than women. Women are the weaker sex, in general. I couldn't even watch the whole of the video, so extreme was the difference between the violence perpetrated by women and that perpetrated by men. in every case (until I stopped the video), the women were knocked to the ground, whereas men were only ever 'slapped'.

Violence is never okay, but I think we have to be pragmatic, and say that male violence against women usually deserves special stigma.

I wouldn't get into a ring with Katie Taylor, mind you, but on the same basis, she wouldn't have a chance against a fairly average male professional.

There's quite a good illustration of this in tennis.

Jannick Noah once played a tennis match against Justine Hennan, whilst he wore a dress. He mostly played trick shots and slices, according to reports, and still he beat her (...in the sporting sense, you understand).

The point being, that male on female violence deserves its stigmatic status in our society. It's not unlike a grown 'tank' of a man beating up a slinky teenager. It's almost nauseating to see it.

Don't hit another human being would be a good starting point for both genders. If you do decide to hit another person don't be surprised at getting hit back.

steddyeddy

Aurum wrote: »

As I said before, hate crime is relevant when there is a criminal act combined with a specific form of motivation. It was committed because the person was of a specific race, disabled etc. The reason, I would imagine, that gender is not included in official hate crime legislation in the UK is because it would be very difficult to prove that a crime was carried out purely because the victim was a woman.

First you say why hate crime would hard to prove and then.......

However, women are disproportionately, and more severely affected, by sexual
harassment, so it was incorporated into the hate crime provision in Nottingham
as a way of highlighting this and gathering more data, and perhaps to act as a
deterrent

You go onto give the reasons why a woman and not gender is incorporated into the hate crime provision. The primary reason in your eyes seems to be that there's A) more women affected by this and women are affected more severely.

First of all the number of racist/sexist attacks does not correlate to how wrong or distressing something is. You cannot legislate for one race, gender without being sexist or racist.

Racist attacks are occurring in the UK following the Brexit vote. The large amount of these seem to be against Muslim men and women. We can't exclude a minority from the law because members of that race, sex or ethnicity make up the minority of people affected by sexism or racism.

I'll mention again, no one will be prosecuted as a result of this change.

The reason why hate crime provisions would almost never work for men is because it would be incredibly rare for a man to be criminally injured by a woman purely because of the man's gender (rather than during an argument etc.) Certainly not frequently enough to require specific legal protection

Again the problem is the wording in bold. You can make gender discrimination a hate crime and race discrimination but you cannot sensibly make legislation for one race or gender.

Aurum

Aurum wrote: »

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant.

You missed the whole point.

This isn't about judicial interpretation in the first instance, it's about prosecution. At present, most reasonable people might have assumed that such an allegation would be 'filtered out' by the police and would never get to court.

For clarity, there are two serious issues at hand.

First of all, the very fact that the Police intend to charge men with 'hate crimed' for verbally communicating with women in this way carries its own stigma, regardless of the conviction. Imagine going for a job interview and being asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime, or are there any criminal charges pending against you before the courts?", and having to disclose that you have a hate crime charge pending.

Or imagine the headline, in this era of google, "Nottingham man prosecuted for hate crime" with your name and address in the by-line.

Secondly, the courts are, to an extent, at the mercy of the Police and the CPS in terms of the cases that appear before the courts. Judges in the lower courts (magistrates' courts and youth courts) don't have the same 'public policy' latitude that exists in the higher courts of England, they are expected to find cases 'on the facts', and do not tend to engage with the public policy dimensions of a case, since they do not establish precedents. The 'public policy' role, i.e. the advisability of bringing a prosecution, is left to the Prosecution, which at magistrates' level is handled in practice by the Police.

In conclusion, the Police play a significant role in determining the type of prosecutions that do, and do not, tend to appear before the courts in light of their 'policy' role in the lower (magistrates' and youth) courts. Therefore, their interpretation of criminal offences is of significant importance, and should not be dismissed.

Mrs Shuttleworth

This diktat discriminates directly against heterosexual men.

Furthermore, the "recording" aspect of the new protocol means that opposite gender interactions, even where no underlying criminal offence has been committed, will be logged, recorded and stored, which is outside the Police's existing remit and jurisdiction.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Stigura wrote: »

" Examples of misogyny hate crime include unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement. "

I'm just fcuking speechless!!! " uninvited verbal contact ". That's what it says. Right there. You can now be arrested, In Nottingham, for asking a woman at a bus stop when the next fcuking bus is due!!!

FFFS!!! Any areas frequented by snowflakes students will now become no go zones for men ~ unless ye walk around staring at the ground and with ye lips tightly sealed.

Life didn't used to be like this

That's what cougars are for.

Mrs Shuttleworth

mohawk wrote: »

Catcalling is not a pleasant experience in most cases you just brush it off. It's when the guy turns on you when you ignore him or reject him that the line is crossed.

What kind of a world is this?

I've always enjoyed being told I have great tits.

Am I supposed to be upset?

Mrs Shuttleworth

osarusan wrote: »

If I understand the hate crime law correctly, the prosecution would still have to prove that any act was motivated by hatred of or hostility toward women.

So I think the fear of going to prison for just asking a woman the time at a bus stop or even using a risque chat-up line is fairly groundless.

I do agree though that I can't see what it is this law would criminalise that isn't already considered illegal. "Threatening, abusive or insulting" language is already illegal in the UK, and it doesn't require the motivation behind the act to be proven either.

As an aside, if the report in the OP is correct, I'm surprised to hear that any county police force in the UK can simply amend/expand law like that. I did not think they had the authority to do so.

Wrong, I'm afraid. These "incidents" are going to be logged and recorded with the intention of building a database - see the Notts Police pronouncement - even if no underlying criminal offence took place. It's a heterosexuality monitoring system under the guise of "protecting women".

Your second point - they don't.

There's a legal challenge in this.

(Apologies MOD for multiple single posts).

the_pen_turner

i was think about this today

this is not very far away from someone looking at women as they walk past. some people stare . im sure it upsets some recipients.
if this law gets a head of steam and isn't challenged it could lead to including looking at women too.

FortySeven

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i was think about this today

this is not very far away from someone looking at women as they walk past. some people stare . im sure it upsets some recipients.
if this law gets a head of steam and isn't challenged it could lead to including looking at women too.

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

I'm not sure I even know what catcalling is. It's something I have never experienced.
Is it wolf whistles from a building site? I dunno but the world has gone bat shít crazy.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

Feminism is a complex movement both politically and philosophically. There are different factions with views of varying extremes.

For so long women were the underclass. What's happening now I think is a swing without balance. It's like we must be protected at all costs, even a hint of sexism and the firey torches are bought out. Language has to be modified. The use of the term 'chick' for example will see some poor fecker dragged across the coals. Or a cutting comment because he dared open the car door for you.

The way it is for me quite simply is that men and women are equal because they are both part of the human race. I wouldn't dream of slapping a man across the face, or manipulating him in to sleeping with me by using my strong sexual currency, or feeling him up in a bar.
We must respect both genders equally and we must protect both genders equally.

FortySeven

Yep. This **** does nothing to empower women. It demeans them and gives power to those who don't believe in equality.

Renegade Mechanic

FortySeven wrote: »

'Stare rape' is already a 'thing' in America. Challenging this feminist travesty is something we need to get going before the next generation of feminised young men think this is normal.

Nowhere near as bad as Reverse Rape though.
That'll be next on the legislation list

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonovanPaisley/status/675671226463817729

Renegade Mechanic

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Nowhere near as bad as Reverse Rape though.
That'll be next on the legislation list

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonovanPaisley/status/675671226463817729

The reverse rape is like parody from the Savage eye

Is there some sort of competition going on between the PC brigade/feminist morons where they are trying to come up with the most absurd concept in order to win a prize?

I can understand the whole objection to cat calling/wolf whistling and to be honest its nothing something i would like any female family members or friends to be subjected to by random strangers but stare rape is beyond the depths of idiocy. Women lingerly look at men as much as men look at women without even attraction coming into the equation. It could be in awe, bewilderment, the other person might be wearing a funny hat....who knows.

And besides anything else, to actually use the term 'rape' in the context of someone being simply stared at is absolutely despicable and disrespectful to genuine rape victims who have been left traumatised by their ordeal. To compare the sensation of being stared at to being actually raped by using the term rape is a violation on its own.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The reverse rape is like parody from the Savage eye

'Reverse rape' and 'stare rape' are not real causes. They're generated by parody blogs and parody twitter accounts, including the one in the above link. The only people who refer to them in a serious context are anti-feminist blogs and some guys on reddit.

They're not real.

FortySeven

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

'Reverse rape' and 'stare rape' are not real causes. They're generated by parody blogs and parody twitter accounts, including the one in the above link. The only people who refer to them in a serious context are anti-feminist blogs and some guys on reddit.

They're not real.

You need to check out tumblr. Granted it is feminazis pushing it but people in America's colleges are listening.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

You need to check out tumblr.

Tumblr has many times more wind-up merchants than AH. 'I saw it on Tumblr' isn't going to convince anyone.

Neither term has any authentic status, neither term is perpetuated by academics, broadcast media, advocacy groups, or any well-known feminists at all. It isn't a thing and people should stop pretending it is.

FortySeven

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Tumblr has many times more wind-up merchants than AH. 'I saw it on Tumblr' isn't going to convince anyone.

Neither term has any authentic status, neither term is perpetuated by academics, broadcast media, advocacy groups, or any well-known feminists at all. It isn't a thing and people should stop pretending it is.

Goshen college implemented stare rape legislation in its sexual policies on campus. It later retracted after severe pressure. Still 'ogling' is part of the sexual harrasment policy.

You can Google it. Download their pdf document on sexual consent.

ToddyDoody

"Anything that would upset a 4 year old child to be declared a hate crime"

Smondie

FortySeven wrote: »

Goshen college implemented stare rape legislation in its sexual policies on campus. It later retracted after severe pressure. Still 'ogling' is part of the sexual harrasment policy.

You can Google it. Download their pdf document on sexual consent.

Oh my God, you're right...

Straight from the Goshen College website, on a page titled “What men can do to stop rape”:

“Don’t allow psychological rape or commit it yourself. Psychological rape consists of verbal harassment, whistles, kissing noises, heavy breathing, sly comments or stares. These are all assaults on any woman’s sense of well-being.”

Shint0

This type of legislation and sentiment if it were to take on here would bring us back to the days when women and men had to line up facing each other across a dancehall with the local priest walking up and down acting as a chaperone.

It's a completely manufactured regressive measure which would put western countries on a par with patriarchal, misogynistic cultures where some public transport is segregated and companies must provide transport for female employees following later shifts for their own safety; the type of cultures where catcalling known as eve teasing is often associated with acid attacks where a woman rejects a man's advances. Are we really at that level where we need to start introducing similar measures. It's just creating a moral panic where this phenomenon is only engaged in by relatively small segment of the population and not normalised everyday behaviour.

I was walking near a beach yesterday evening with my dog and my husband was slightly ahead of me. Two youngish guys, possibly students, early twenties, quite normal average profile were chatting and as I walked past one of them quietly said "Are you local?". Now I knew he wasn't about to ask me for directions. It was quite obvious it was a male to female interaction and as I had my dog with me they might have presumed I was from the area. Given the context it was a great day at the beach, amazing weather, people tend to be a bit more free and sociable. I chuckled to myself that I must look younger than I thought as I was old enough to have been their babysitter when they were born. Could these guy have potentially been arrested?

Boundaries are there for a purpose but boundaries are not supposed to be rigid and inflexible which most well adjusted members of society recognise.

Elliott S

selastich2 wrote: »

Let's hope they don't re-run the diet coke ad where the guy takes off his shirt

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

Smondie

Elliott S wrote: »

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

If you read a bit further you will see someone else made that point and I pulled up more recent examples to show the same.

darkpagandeath

Elliott S wrote: »

This ad is always trotted out. This TWENTY year old ad. The fact that one has to go back so far is telling.

What about the ad where the guy has all these kitchen cleaners looking like what sorcery is this :pac:

Smondie

Benefit cosmetics

Hilarious Benefit Cosmetics ad shows women ogling men's bulges
The Benefit Cosmetics advertisement shows a series of good-looking men attracting the attention of women, who stare wide-eyed at their bulging crotches.