Almost all young women in the UK have been sexually harassed [MOD WARNING 1st POST]

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Really? So you're now assuming that all women discriminate based on looks alone?

A search of my post history will disprove that so don't assume to know what criteria I look for in a man.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying your use of the word selectively implies that women accept some men while rejecting others.

I never mentioned looks either.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh stop with the dramatics :pac:

Women were asked for their opinions in a survey, they have their subjective opinions of their subjective experiences, which were collated by a third party conducting the surveys, so that’s where the surveys were objective. All the answers given were given by women who were surveyed, the people who commissioned the surveys hardly all got together and made up the figures themselves.

It's subjective the whole way through because the third party has a stake/bias in presenting such interpretations. If the third party had been a neutral group with no involvement in women's rights/issues, then it would have been accurate to call it objective.

You know yourself how questions are framed, and just importantly, how that raw data is interpreted, can completely change the direction of what is revealed.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm saying your use of the word selectively implies that women accept some men while rejecting others.

I never mentioned looks either.

You did, because you said my post was back to the old nugget of "if a good looking man approaches it's welcome but harassment if he's ugly". It's like you don't remember what you post, just randomly twist things rather than debate in good faith.

That means you think my use of the word "selectively" was based on looks.

Yes, I reject some men but I can still be flattered. You twisted that to imply I'll take any man going.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

This is back to the old nugget in this thread.

Advances are welcomed if hes attractive. Hiw many times have women said that's rubbish? But yet it's back again in a different format.

Given that we are talking unwelcome sexual approaches and requests, anyone approaching with that attitude, should be told to fo.

Here is the first one.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I would love to know how anyone determines a stranger's level of interest before striking up a conversation. It's mission impossible without the special effects.

You keep asking that though and people keep answering.

You say hello and smile.

Its called basic social etiquette.

Unless people have zero common sense or social intelligence, they will be aware if the conversation is going well or not. If not, just head off.

This is very basic and should not need to be spelled out to adults.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

^^Slut shaming because I don't selectively attack some men for being brave enough to approach me.

The word selectively implies it.

Here's the second.

On my phone so can't multiquote.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

You keep asking that though and people keep answering.

You say hello and smile.

Its called basic social etiquette.

Unless people have zero common sense or social intelligence, they will be aware if the conversation is going well or not. If not, just head off.

This is very basic and should not need to be spelled out to adults.

But that's how to approach. How do you know the woman is interested before you walk over, smile and say hello?

Strumms

I am a male. By the definition of sexual harassment, the ’legal definition’ .. I have been subject to sexual harassment by females in public, apparently.

Sexual harassment is any form of “unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. Some examples include unwanted physical contact or unwelcome propositions...

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh stop with the dramatics :pac:

Women were asked for their opinions in a survey, they have their subjective opinions of their subjective experiences, which were collated by a third party conducting the surveys, so that’s where the surveys were objective.

"Would you say you have ever been sexually harassed by a man?
[This question only contains the answers of female respondents]
GB 18-19 Oct '20
Yes, I have: 52%
No, I have not: 44%"

majorities across all countries considered a man commenting on a woman’s attractiveness directly to her, a man winking at a woman and a man asking a woman out for a drink to not be forms of sexual harassment.

A man placing his hand on a woman’s lower back proved to be more contentious, with a majority of respondents in France (71%), Germany (54%), and Sweden (53%) considering this a form of sexual harassment. In Britain and Denmark the public were more split, with still 40% and 41% considering this sexual harassment respectively.

Britain was the only country in which a majority considered a man directing sexual jokes at a woman (69%) and a man looking at a woman’s breasts (53%) to be sexual harassment. Similarly, only the French were more likely to consider wolf whistling (52%) to constitute sexual harassment, than not.

All the answers given were given by women who were surveyed, the people who commissioned the surveys hardly all got together and made up the figures themselves.

This article was amended on 24 March 2021. Due to incorrect information supplied to us, an earlier version said the UN Women UK survey found that 97% of women aged 18-24 had reported being sexually harassed in public spaces, and 80% of all women; these figures are actually 86% and 71% respectively. The headline has also been amended to reflect this updated text.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

You did, because you said my post was back to the old nugget of "if a good looking man approaches it's welcome but harassment if he's ugly". It's like you don't remember what you post, just randomly twist things rather than debate in good faith.

That means you think my use of the word "selectively" was based on looks.

Yes, I reject some men but I can still be flattered. You twisted that to imply I'll take any man going.

No it did not imply youd take any man going at all.

You said and are still saying youd be flattered by any approach.

Leg End Reject

Strumms wrote: »

I am a male. By the definition of sexual harassment, the ’legal definition’ .. I have been subject to sexual harassment by females in public, apparently.

Sexual harassment is any form of “unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”. Some examples include unwanted physical contact or unwelcome propositions...

You should go on a hen night. Women attack in packs!

One of my first posts on this tread (I think it was this one anyway) was referencing that we need to accept men and women are different, and those differences influence how we behave and interact.

It's easy for a man to harass a woman if he's that way inclined because of the advantage of physical strength. Women do it as a group because we're weaker.

So, educate men? Educate everyone in how to not only approach politely, but also how to decline politely, but don't expect the assholes of either sex to take it on board. It's the assholes that cause the problems, the rest of us cop on in our late teens-mid 20s.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's subjective the whole way through because the third party has a stake/bias in presenting such interpretations. If the third party had been a neutral group with no involvement in women's rights/issues, then it would have been accurate to call it objective.

You know yourself how questions are framed, and just importantly, how that raw data is interpreted, can completely change the direction of what is revealed.

Honestly klaz I haven’t gone any further than the article in the opening post, and they give the results of a number of surveys commissioned by organisations with a stake in women’s rights and welfare and so on. What they can’t do, and what they don’t do, is tell respondents how to answer any of the questions, or what are the correct answers to give so that they get the results they want.

Highlights from the various surveys include -

Among women aged 18-24, 86% said they had been sexually harassed in public spaces, while just 3% did not recall ever having experienced sexually harassing behaviour. The remaining 11% chose not to answer the question.

According to the survey, published in a report by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for UN Women, 71% of women of any age said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.

The survey of more than 1,000 women, carried out by YouGov and seen exclusively by the Guardian, exposes a damning lack of faith in the UK authorities’ desire and ability to deal with sexual harassment – 96% of respondents did not report incidents, with 45% saying it would not change anything. Among those who said the event was not serious enough to report were women who had been groped, followed and coerced into sexual activity, said UN Women UK.

Bates pointed to TUC/Everyday Sexism research that found 52% of women had experienced sexual harassment at work, and of the one in five who had reported it, three-quarters said nothing had changed, while 16% said they were treated worse as a result.


If they were relying on the opinions of one woman, I’d say you absolutely had a point about subjectivity, but they didn’t just ask one woman, and the surveys covered a range of scenarios and contexts, not just being approached by a randomer in a club, the one point posters here are hanging their hats on to try and rubbish the results of the surveys or say they lack objectivity.

The objections to the results haven’t amounted to much more than subjective opinions clutching at straws to dismiss the results of the surveys, or to determine what is or isn’t harassment according to their standards. Surely the figures given in one survey at least suggest that while women have been harassed, they don’t feel there’s much point in reporting it because nothing is ever done, and that survey was asking about sexual harassment in the workplace! Not a club or on the street or in public, but in the workplace, and those who did report being harassed were treated worse as a result of making a report.

Mister Vain

anewme wrote: »

You keep asking that though and people keep answering.

You say hello and smile.

Its called basic social etiquette.

Unless people have zero common sense or social intelligence, they will be aware if the conversation is going well or not. If not, just head off.

This is very basic and should not need to be spelled out to adults.

That's not really answering the question though. She asked how do you determine a stranger's level of interest before striking up a conversation

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

No it did not imply youd take any man going at all.

You said and are still saying youd be flattered by any approach.

How about you address the rest of my post? Where I've shown you've implied I select on the basis of looks.

Most women are flattered that men find them attractive enough to approach even if they're not interested.

I'd assume most people of either sex would be flattered, unless they're asexual or afraid of intimacy.

anewme

Popcorn Box wrote: »

The unwelcome approach has already been made at that point. Ergo you can't stop unwelcome approaches. All you can do is make your excuses and leave once you realise the approach is unwelcome.

How has the unwelcome approach been made.

The survey references unwanted sexual approaches, unwanted sexual requests.

How, if you think that following hello, that your next line shoukd be sexual, then there really is an issue.

Walking past someone saying hello is not mentioned as harrassment.

Where are you getting that leap from.

Leg End Reject

This is getting hilarious, I'm waiting on the online equivalent of someone jumping out to shout "You've been framed!"

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The objections to the results haven’t amounted to much more than subjective opinions clutching at straws to dismiss the results of the surveys, or to determine what is or isn’t harassment according to their standards. Surely the figures given in one survey at least suggest that while women have been harassed, they don’t feel there’s much point in reporting it because nothing is ever done, and that survey was asking about sexual harassment in the workplace! Not a club or on the street or in public, but in the workplace, and those who did report being harassed were treated worse as a result of making a report.

haha... we're at different places here. I was simply referring to the links in the OP, not any article that came afterwards.

Still in relation to your own post about subjective and objective, the point stands. An organisation whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about women's issues cannot be considered unbiased in how they report their findings. To be objective, the data would need to be examined by an independent body that is not directly involved, and so, no possible bias.

As for the contributions to the thread, yeah.. I can see your point... although there have been some very insightful and accurate objections which have been dismissed. In any case, I don't deny that women face harassment in society, from both men, and from other women. I do think that the surveys and articles need to be more specific about the conditions of the harassment and understanding about human behavior with regards to individual perception. There seems to be a ungraceful haste to take the minor and very dubious forms of harassment and use them as a boost to suggest that the stronger, more aggressive and definitely bad forms of behavior are commonplace.

Still.. I'm not against what you've said above. I definitely appreciate your pov.

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

That's not really answering the question though. She asked how do you determine a stranger's level of interest before striking up a conversation

Level of interest in what though? If they weren’t aware of your existence before, what makes you think they should be interested in you that you have to make them aware if your existence? You’re interested in them, so any obligation to be considerate of how other people may react is on you.

(not you personally, but anyone claiming they can’t know if a person is interested before they approach anyone)

Popcorn Box

Popcorn Box wrote: »

If you are approaching someone non-platonically, then it's a sexual approach. Flirting is implicitly sexual.

Yes.. and while you might be approaching someone in a platonic state, she might perceive your approach as being sexual.. and that's all that matters. Which is why these surveys of harassment are, in many cases, subjective.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Level of interest in what though? If they weren’t aware of your existence before, what makes you think they should be interested in you that you have to make them aware if your existence? You’re interested in them, so any obligation to be considerate of how other people may react is on you.

(not you personally, but anyone claiming they can’t know if a person is interested before they approach anyone)

It was suggested here that men should only approach a woman once they had ascertained that she was also interested in him, otherwise it was an unwelcome approach, and therefore, sexual harassment.

All the whataboutery since won't change that.

Popcorn Box

Popcorn Box wrote: »

I've never approached a woman so I could play scrabble with them. Maybe some men do, not me.

You will if you're still single as an older man. Sex becomes far less important as you get older, and you place greater value on personality, and just the experience of being with someone. Physical attraction remains important, but sex is pretty low on the reasons to meet someone new. (physical attraction is not the same as sexual interest)

If you have a scarcity mentality about women, then sex will be of great importance. If you're successful from dating, then, you won't consider sex to be that important, and will meet women just for the fun of it.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Most women are flattered that men find them attractive enough to approach even if they're not interested.

You’ve conducted a survey of most women then?

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I'd assume most people of either sex would be flattered, unless they're asexual or afraid of intimacy.

Ahh well that’s fair enough, you’re honest about admitting it’s what you’d assume and you’re not suggesting anyone who isn’t flattered is actually asexual or afraid of intimacy.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

It was suggested here that men should only approach a woman once they had ascertained that she was also interested in him, otherwise it was an unwelcome approach, and therefore, sexual harassment.

All the whataboutery since won't change that.

There’s been no whataboutery, but you’re taking that to the same extremes as people here who are complaining that the results of a survey mean they’re being oppressed and they can’t approach women any more. You have to know that’s not what the surveys are suggesting?

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ve conducted a survey of most women then?





Ahh well that’s fair enough, you’re honest about admitting it’s what you’d assume and you’re not suggesting anyone who isn’t flattered is actually asexual or afraid of intimacy.

Well I've formed that opinion from the people I interact with in real life. The only times I've seen a woman get offended is when the man is drunk or abusive. Otherwise they decline, disengage and get on with whatever they were doing before the approach.

Now, younger women can get offended if they think the man isn't attractive enough for them, but I'm assuming we're all past the late teens-early 20s stage here.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s been no whataboutery, but you’re taking that to the same extremes as people here who are complaining that the results of a survey mean they’re being oppressed and they can’t approach women any more. You have to know that’s not what the surveys are suggesting?

I know the survey didn't suggest it, it was a poster here who did.

I'm bemused by the suggestion.

Mister Vain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Level of interest in what though? If they weren’t aware of your existence before, what makes you think they should be interested in you that you have to make them aware if your existence? You’re interested in them, so any obligation to be considerate of how other people may react is on you.

(not you personally, but anyone claiming they can’t know if a person is interested before they approach anyone)

It was stated that you should acquire information about your target before you approach. The question was then asked how do you do that before striking up a conversation. It's a simple question that still hasn't been answered.

Leg End Reject

Mister Vain wrote: »

It was stated that you should acquire information about your target before you approach. The question was then asked how do you do that before striking up a conversation. It's a simple question that still hasn't been answered.

Probably because it's impossible.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There seems to be a ungraceful haste to take the minor and very dubious forms of harassment and use them as a boost to suggest that the stronger, more aggressive and definitely bad forms of behavior are commonplace.

Nah klaz I think the surveys are just a means to highlight the pervasiveness of the shìtty behaviour that’s so commonplace it’s regarded as normal, people see nothing wrong with it. That’s the point they’re making, and when women make the point, or raise these issues, “Get off the Internet if you can’t take it”, “Go to a monastery or a convent if you’re not open to being approached”, and it’s not a stretch to go from there to telling women that they shouldn’t be out in public for their own safety.

Telling women what they should and shouldn’t do for their own safety always strikes me as painting a rather shìtty picture of men to excuse the shìtty behaviour of what are an absolute tiny, tiny minority of men, because I don’t believe for a minute that men are so clueless that they don’t know how to behave appropriately around women, when everything they have soaked up in childhood and adulthood would inform them about how to behave appropriately towards women.

Men trying to play the victim on this one claiming they’re being told now they’re harassing women, are behaving like spoiled children who are thinking their freedoms are being curtailed, and they don’t like it. It’s those men should be told to grow up a bit, as opposed to telling grown women they’re not being harassed.

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

It was stated that you should acquire information about your target before you approach. The question was then asked how do you do that before striking up a conversation. It's a simple question that still hasn't been answered.

That was one person’s opinion though? I think we all had a giggle at how tone deaf that sounded

The question was answered many times by many different posters - you can’t know, because everyone is going to give you a different answer. You’re looking for certainties where there aren’t any. You can’t reasonably expect that everyone will give you the answers you want to hear, because so far you’ve ignored the fact that the question has been answered, just not to your satisfaction.

Mister Vain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was one person’s opinion though? I think we all had a giggle at how tone deaf that sounded

The question was answered many times by many different posters - you can’t know, because everyone is going to give you a different answer. You’re looking for certainties where there aren’t any. You can’t reasonably expect that everyone will give you the answers you want to hear, because so far you’ve ignored the fact that the question has been answered, just not to your satisfaction.

Was it though? At best there were a few poor attempts like "say hello and smile" which is completely contradictory. Apart from that, the question was mostly deflected.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

How about you address the rest of my post? Where I've shown you've implied I select on the basis of looks.

Most women are flattered that men find them attractive enough to approach even if they're not interested.

I'd assume most people of either sex would be flattered, unless they're asexual or afraid of intimacy.

I’d see it very differently.

Flattery, is insincere and the term to flatter means choose to believe something favourable about oneself, typically when this belief is unfounded.

So, anyone needing validation this way relying on insincere comments from others could be lacking confidence.

Same as dick pics. If you ask for dick pics then fair enough, but sending unsolicited pics is an invasion of privacy and lack of respect. Laughing it off again is lack of confidence in my view.

Assuming people who don’t need validation from others are assexual or afraid of intimacy again cones across as strange and a bit needy.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

I’d see it very differently.

Flattery, is insincere and the term to flatter means choose to believe something favourable about oneself, typically when this belief is unfounded.

So, anyone needing validation this way relying on insincere comments from others could be lacking confidence.

Same as dick pics. If you ask for dick pics then fair enough, but sending unsolicited pics is an invasion of privacy and lack of respect. Laughing it off again is lack of confidence in my view.

Assuming people who don’t need validation from others are assexual or afraid of intimacy again cones across as strange and a bit needy.

So again you just ignore all the explanations I've given and twist it that I'm needy?

What a strange and insincere method of communicating.

anewme

Mister Vain wrote: »

It was stated that you should acquire information about your target before you approach. The question was then asked how do you do that before striking up a conversation. It's a simple question that still hasn't been answered.

Referring to a person as a target is disrespectful as well.

People are not stupid and can see through insincere approach as a bit of a saddo.

Mister Vain

anewme wrote: »

Referring to a person as a target is disrespectful as well.

People are not stupid and can see through insincere approach as a bit of a saddo.

I completely agree.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

So again you just ignore all the explanations I've given and twist it that I'm needy?

What a strange and insincere method of communicating.

Weird that you see people not needing validation as asexual, but get offended when the alternative view is that they might be able to see through insincere flattery and don’t rely on others approval for their own self esteem.

Leg End Reject

Mister Vain wrote: »

I completely agree.

And it wasn't any of us who disagree with the survey findings who said it.

anewme

Mister Vain wrote: »

I completely agree.

I get that it started as a bit of a joke initially but now it reads as serious. Either way, the joke is old.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

Weird that you see people not needing validation as asexual, but get offended when the alternative view is that they might be able to see through insincere flattery and don’t rely on others approval for their own self esteem.

Being flattered doesn't mean I seek external validation.

Was you shoehorning having a nice car, even though it was irrelevant to the discussion, and then claiming the man was probably an "aul begrudger" when this was pointed out evidence of you seeking external validation?

I'm sure you'll say it wasn't of course. The only other car reference was a poster who said his ex had a nice car and men would beep at her. They probably liked the car.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Well I've formed that opinion from the people I interact with in real life. The only times I've seen a woman get offended is when the man is drunk or abusive. Otherwise they decline, disengage and get on with whatever they were doing before the approach.

Now, younger women can get offended if they think the man isn't attractive enough for them, but I'm assuming we're all past the late teens-early 20s stage here.

I’ll be honest, I haven’t conducted any surveys among any women I know or have known, to know whether they’re flattered or not that men find them attractive enough to approach them. ‘Twould be odd coming from me though in any case, they’d wonder when I started caring

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of younger women though as if they really are that shallow, couldn’t it be just as reasonable to assume that the person approaching them made them uncomfortable or was behaving in a way they consider sexual harassment, and nothing to do with the person’s looks from an outsiders perspective? They’re able to tell the difference too between being chatted up, and sexual harassment.

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

Was it though? At best there were a few poor attempts like "say hello and smile" which is completely contradictory. Apart from that, the question was mostly deflected.

Yes, it was answered many times, and while you’re of the opinion they were poor attempts, the question was answered, just not to your satisfaction, which is a different thing entirely than continuing to claim the question wasn’t answered.

Leg End Reject

Jack, I was young once and can see people interacting. My friends have children who are teenagers and young adults and women talk.

Or at least I could, when socialising was actually possible.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Being flattered doesn't mean I seek external validation.

Was you shoehorning having a nice car, even though it was irrelevant to the discussion, and then claiming the man was probably an "aul begrudger" when this was pointed out evidence of you seeking external validation?

I'm sure you'll say it wasn't of course. The only other car reference was a poster who said his ex had a nice car and men would beep at her. They probably liked the car.

No, it was another poster who brought up in that his ex girlfriend had not a nice car,, but a a “super car” . I was responding to that poster
and I never used the term super car.

Post was about people shouting stuff out of cars at women walking/ jogging so mentioning a super car was not relevant.

There was no reference to me seeking validation, the point I made was that a security guard made a comment on the car automatically assuming it was my husbands. Poster asked did I think it was harassment and I said likely just begrudgery.

If a poster is talking about cars, then responding about cars is not unsurprising.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

No, it was another poster who brought up in that his ex girlfriend had not a nice car,, but a a “super car” . I was responding to that poster
and I never used the boastful term super car.

Post was about people shouting stuff out of cars at women walking/ jogging so mentioning a super car was not relevant.

Again, your issue is with the person responding and not the person raising it.

No, it was an irrelevant post about a man telling you that you were lucky your husband let you drive his car. You were the one who responded to the original comment and it wasn't relevant to the discussion.

When you were asked if it was evidence of harassment you said "no, probably just an aul begrudger".

Talking about material possessions is another common way of seeking validation.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No, it was an irrelevant post about a man telling you that you were lucky your husband let you drive his car. You were the one who responded to the original comment and it wasn't relevant to the discussion.

When you were asked if it was evidence of harassment you said "no, probably just an aul begrudger".

Talking about material possessions is another common way of seeking validation.

Tell that to the lad going on about his ex driving a super car. If the topic was about cars, then It’s not a reach that others give their experience of cars too.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Jack, I was young once and can see people interacting. My friends have children who are teenagers and young adults and women talk.

Or at least I could, when socialising was actually possible.

And the women who were surveyed were young once and all, and can see people interacting and they have children who are teenagers and young adults and yeah, women do talk, but according to the results of that survey, it’s apparent that they don’t talk about their experiences of sexual harassment.

My point is that they are just as capable as anyone here of being able to tell the difference between appropriate interactions, and sexual harassment, and they’re basing their opinions on their own judgment the same way you’re basing your judgment on your experiences and the experiences of those people you know. Yet because their experiences are contrary to a particular narrative, there are people here going out of their way to question the results of the various surveys.

Think about it - when you feel people are being dismissive of your opinions, it’s a bit shìte and it’s like they’re being unreasonable. Same thing for the women in that survey then who have a different opinion to the person who tries to make out that there are any number of explanations besides them being able to legitimately claim they were sexually harassed. That’s why they don’t talk about it, because they’re already aware that they’ll be told they’re being unreasonable or what they experienced wasn’t harassment and all the rest of it.

I wouldn’t try and tell you you’re wrong or that because I don’t have your experiences then that gives me a license to undermine your opinions, but that’s what’s being done to anyone who tries to make a point about the fact that a large number of women experience shìtty behaviours and attitudes from what are a tiny minority of men who put themselves first before any consideration for other people.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah klaz I think the surveys are just a means to highlight the pervasiveness of the shìtty behaviour that’s so commonplace it’s regarded as normal, people see nothing wrong with it. That’s the point they’re making, and when women make the point, or raise these issues, “Get off the Internet if you can’t take it”, “Go to a monastery or a convent if you’re not open to being approached”, and it’s not a stretch to go from there to telling women that they shouldn’t be out in public for their own safety.

Whereas I see a movement to blame "men" for systems and behaviors that they have no control over. I can't change how people behave on the internet. I can't change how my friends, or strangers behave towards women. There are many sets of behaviors I don't like, I often find offensive, but I know that I can't stop them from happening. Oh. I can take on the individual in question, at that given moment, perhaps (although likely escalating the situation, and bringing real danger to myself) preventing the behavior from continuing in that particular moment, but I can't stop them from continuing to behave that way towards others.

My problem isn't particularly with the surveys themselves, but what has been born from them. The attitudes that are present in this thread, when posters talk about how "men" behave. I'm a man. I don't behave that way. I was raised to be polite, and wherever possible be mindful that others won't consider my actions the same way I do.

The simple fact is, from my perspective, is that we are only in control (somewhat) of our own lives, and what we do ourselves.. When it involves other people, anything can, and likely will happen. Whereas, the attitudes displayed here on the thread, and on many of the articles seem to believe that I, as a man, are part of some gender based group, where my opinion can alter the direction of the minority who ignore politeness, and act like a twat.

And there are places which are known to be dangerous, offensive, or whatever. I don't use twitter because I know that it's full of people just waiting to insult others for the fun of it all. I know that dating websites are full of scam artists, and people who judge others entirely on their appearance, while also lies are a common currency. Just as I know from experience, that many of the women I speak to on dating sites, already have boyfriends or are married, but won't admit it until after we've hooked up. I know that there are many areas of the internet which are obscene... And what do I do? I avoid them.. because I know they're not going to change for me, and if I want to avoid being harassed, or insulted, then I should be elsewhere.

You see... I do feel that women should take extra care in protecting themselves, especially, if they're going to get offended over everything even remotely negative, but expect that they shouldn't need to adapt to their circumstances. The reason i feel that way, is because I adapted to avoiding situations that are known to me, in generating greater degrees of risk or danger. I'm not expecting women to do anything I haven't done myself, but also being aware, as a woman, they're less physically capable than a man, and therefore need to take extra precautions.

And sure, I get it. They "shouldn't" need to. If they want to walk around in revealing clothing, then men shouldn't react to it.., in spite of centuries of social engineering to make men react to such displays. If women want to get wasted drunk, and party with complete strangers, they should be able to do so.. but the reality is that it does involve greater risk to them.. and that risk should be acknowledged. Not simply expecting the risk to suddenly stop because women want to live that way... be realistic.

It comes down to expectations. I understand that many people are twisted. Many people have bizarre notions which I can never fully appreciate. Many people do crap which I would never dream of doing. And I can't change that. I can't force them to stop. And yet, somehow, an expectation has developed over the last few decades, which encourages the belief that I am responsible for what other men do.. simply because as a male, I am judged by their behavior.

So. No.

As for harassment.. go back and read what I wrote about it. Being that it's subjective. And I'll even give an example.

---
A few years ago, when I was working in a university, I was in the middle of the examination period. A month of intensive examinations, marking, and thesis prep, while also having classes. I'd be working almost flat out from early morning to late at night doing one thing or another.. while also dealing with student inquiries. Which, normally, would have been fine, since I knew what I was getting myself into.. and I actually enjoyed my work.

However, I was also sick with a fever, but there was no chance of getting sick leave. So. I soldiered on, doing everything required of me. And then, the end of a particular day came, when I was flat out wrecked, my work was finished, and I was settling down in a bar for a drink (before I went home to crash out). I simply wanted to have a few drinks, not talk to anyone, and go home. However, a series of people came over to speak to me, because they wanted to practice their English with me. Any other time, I would have been happy to talk with them, but that night i had no interest.

However, I was raised to be polite, so I struggled through it.. and they left. Sweet bliss. Until they returned with some friends, who also wanted to chat with me. The tension built until I ended up snapping at them, and just leaving.

Those people were innocent. They didn't know what was happening in my life. They didn't know that I was extremely tired, or sick to death of talking to people. They were simply eager, although, I did feel harassed by them. And that's the problem with many harassment claims that might be used for these surveys.

There is little consideration for the circumstances surrounding the claim of harassment. No attitude that the details should be examined, and determined whether the offenders were genuinely rude, offensive, or aggressive. Instead, the focus is entirely on whether the woman felt harassed in some way.. that's it.

Anyway, I'm done for the evening. Night folks

Quantum Erasure

https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1377518004477554691

One eyed Jack

Popcorn Box wrote: »

People have egos. It shouldn't be surprising that some people would be offended if someone approached them that they thought was "well below them" on the attractiveness scale. This is one of those "dark" realities of life that people on forums such as this like to ignore or not notice.

It’s not a surprise to anyone? It’s just not relevant in terms of having any bearing on women being sexually harassed by men.

99nsr125

anewme wrote: »

What is bigoted exactly?

Not wanting to be harassed in public and speaking out about it

From someone who said women belong in the kitchen and women are nuts, it's a bit rich to call anyone else a bigot.

Well seeing as I never said women belong in the kitchen but you have very conveniently just proved the second point by responding in an insane manner once again unable to debate on the point, misrepresenting what has been said. All classic symptoms of neurosis ergo crazy.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

Tell that to the lad going on about his ex driving a super car. If the topic was about cars, then It’s not a reach that others give their experience of cars too.

This is what he said:

"An ex of mine used to drive a supercar, naturally getting a lot of attention. She'd tell me that some men would honk their horn at her on the road. She used to always joke about what they thought was going to happen, that she'd stop driving and run over to them in the middle of traffic? But again, never saw or heard anyone being harassed from a car verbally."

No implication of harassment at all.