woman hears over 100 cat calls while walking through nyc

a reply to: FlySolo

It's only harassment if it's not flirting.

True, and if it's not reciprocated

It is all part of the dance, which is why I don't see everything as criminal behavior. I wouldn't do away with most of it even if I could

The one guy in the video who was dogging her steps for a few minutes? Nothing good about that - a woman's worst nightmare

Money happens to be an intrinsic part of the natural selection process and the more a man has of it, the better. There's no need to spin-doctor it to make it look like a 'male interpreted' thing. BTW, I changed my mind about the GQ bit because the truth is, he can be as ugly as sin just as long as he's "gainfully" secured. Joe Dimaggio - Marilyn Monroe for inst.

No argument there. It's not the only thing women are looking for though - natural selection is more flexible and varied than that. But, yeah - you're right

So - about language and intent... :-)

Laid bare - all of this makes perfect sense. With a little spin - misogyny

I'm pretty sure you understand that - it's not as if it doesn't exist

Some men are pretty angry with women - that money thing comes up a lot

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

yup there's jerks. akin to a minority of fundamental 'terrorists'. The rest of us men still practice the art of seduction with integrity and the game can be still fun for both sexes.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Tangerine

We teach them that they're not, by virtue of being male, entitled.

Entitled to what?

I have a problem, if I'm going to be honest - with this idea that life can somehow be sanitized for our protection

On the other hand - women have changed so much about their circumstances by being such a pain in the ass culturally (I mean that in a good way) that both women and men were forced to look at what was acceptable to all and then see it differently. That takes persistence and time

New Zealand model re-creates viral catcalling video, does not get catcalled at all
The issue isn't "boys being boys." It's deep culturally embedded sexism

In an interesting test of the “boys will be boys” hypothesis, the New Zealand Herald decided to re-create the Hollaback video on the streets of Auckland, recruiting a model named Nicola Simpson to star. As in the New York video, Simpson walked around the city for 10 hours behind a hidden camera chronicling her trip. And guess what happened? She received zero catcalls. None. Not one.

Is it cultural? Is it men? Is it all men? Is it American men? Is it the men in NYC? Is there a solution to this problem? Do we all agree that this is a problem? If it is a problem, do we all agree it's a priority? Are men allowed to have an opinion on all this?

Can we even decide, first of all, what it is we're looking at here? Is this rape? Assault? Is it intimidation? Is it impolite? Is it flirtation? Is it annoying? Degrading? Is it possible that it's all these things being lumped together into one category?

I'm asking - seriously - what's the plan? Teaching boys that they aren't entitled - to what? Seems like most boys are raised right, so what do we do about those few that think 'Hey baby! Looking fine...' is friendly? Are we sure that it's not?

Trust me on this Tangerine - I am aware that women still have much work to do if we're going to change our circumstances. There are other places in the world that could really benefit form our attention right now - I wish we would be a little choosier when we pick our battles. I know this is important to you, but just being mad isn't going to fix anything - especially if we focus on things that aren't fixable

Take Action

Check out their site - investigate it thoroughly. They don't have a plan either - not even close. I've been thinking about this a lot for the past few days, this isn't the only thread to deal with this. I've been reading up on this movement for a little while now. It's very interesting, but I'm not sure it's about what it's about - if you know what I mean

We teach them that they're not entitled to harass women, of course. Several of the males posting here have made it clear that, by virtue of being male and a woman daring to walk down the street, they are entitled to harass her. It's the old, "She's asking for it". It's also the old, "She enjoys it." We know where, in the extreme, that leads.

Of course life can't be sanitized but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it safe for people to exist. We do have laws against domestic violence, child abuse, and rape. Even so, there are segments of the population that think those things are fine and even blame the crime victims. Had laws not been put in place, those things would be happening with greater frequency. Hatred of women by men (and by women who are self-loathers) is still not uncommon.The men who harassed that woman (I'm not talking about the simple smiles and passing "Hellos") were fully aware that they were making her feel uncomfortable and that was their motive. The threat of rape underlies that behavior. The men know it and the woman knew it. They wanted her to feel vulnerable.

Yes, it's cultural. Either a culture tolerates it or it does not. The sub-culture in New York clearly tolerates it. The solution is to make it illegal (it already may be illegal to harass. i don't know) and enforce it until it is not culturally tolerated. Yes, there will still be predators, but they will no longer be as plentiful and men who are not predators will join women in not tolerating that harassment.

originally posted by: Tangerine
Yes, it's cultural. Either a culture tolerates it or it does not. The sub-culture in New York clearly tolerates it. The solution is to make it illegal (it already may be illegal to harass. i don't know) and enforce it until it is not culturally tolerated. Yes, there will still be predators, but they will no longer be as plentiful and men who are not predators will join women in not tolerating that harassment.

Perhaps you could identify which laws have been written that actually put a stop to a behavior. What ends up happening is folks with good conscience stop doing whatever was made illegal. Everyone else...they ignore it. Seems to me that people of good conscience are not the type to catcall women. I guess, to sum it up, the net you are casting isn't going to catch any fish. Never has, never will. Writing new laws is only meant to make people FEEL safer, not actually BE safer.

with that said, I would like to turn your attention to the bolded part above. It is frustrating to discuss these topics with someone who is militant in their firmness of belief, only to have them point out that they really don't know if their solution is already in use. One thing stands the test of time: laws written for one thing tend to be leveraged against people for something else entirely. You re proposing legislation to address a problem that exists in a very small part of this large country, among a very small population of people. Its another instance of holding the entire nation accountable for the actions of a few.

Besides, it is unAmerican. People have freedom of speech. People hve freedom of movement. Will those freedoms be used inappropriately? Certainly. That is why it is referred to as "the rough seas of liberty", juxtaposed against "the calm harbors of tyranny".

ETA: it might work better if we establish that you will not "teach" a misogynist to respect women. It just isn't going to happen short of hours and hours of counseling. The only way to "teach" somone who like to assail women to not do it is a blackjack to the kneecaps. I am a 300+ lb man, former college football lineman and champion powerlifter. I have walked in NYC before. And I damn sure didn't do it without something to keep me from being an easy target. It would be foolish for someone else to try. Especially a female that knows sh is no physical match for a male assailant.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Tangerine
Yes, it's cultural. Either a culture tolerates it or it does not. The sub-culture in New York clearly tolerates it. The solution is to make it illegal (it already may be illegal to harass. i don't know) and enforce it until it is not culturally tolerated. Yes, there will still be predators, but they will no longer be as plentiful and men who are not predators will join women in not tolerating that harassment.

Perhaps you could identify which laws have been written that actually put a stop to a behavior. What ends up happening is folks with good conscience stop doing whatever was made illegal. Everyone else...they ignore it. Seems to me that people of good conscience are not the type to catcall women. I guess, to sum it up, the net you are casting isn't going to catch any fish. Never has, never will. Writing new laws is only meant to make people FEEL safer, not actually BE safer.

with that said, I would like to turn your attention to the bolded part above. It is frustrating to discuss these topics with someone who is militant in their firmness of belief, only to have them point out that they really don't know if their solution is already in use. One thing stands the test of time: laws written for one thing tend to be leveraged against people for something else entirely. You re proposing legislation to address a problem that exists in a very small part of this large country, among a very small population of people. Its another instance of holding the entire nation accountable for the actions of a few.

Besides, it is unAmerican. People have freedom of speech. People hve freedom of movement. Will those freedoms be used inappropriately? Certainly. That is why it is referred to as "the rough seas of liberty", juxtaposed against "the calm harbors of tyranny".

ETA: it might work better if we establish that you will not "teach" a misogynist to respect women. It just isn't going to happen short of hours and hours of counseling. The only way to "teach" somone who like to assail women to not do it is a blackjack to the kneecaps. I am a 300+ lb man, former college football lineman and champion powerlifter. I have walked in NYC before. And I damn sure didn't do it without something to keep me from being an easy target. It would be foolish for someone else to try. Especially a female that knows sh is no physical match for a male assailant.

I don't know of any laws that have completely obliterated a behavior but a number of laws have greatly reduced certain behaviors: rape laws, domestic violence laws, etc.. People of good conscience often remain silent while women are harassed. Did you see anyone intervene when that man followed that woman or when some of the men made suggestive comments? Nope.

When I said I didn't know if laws against harassment exist, I was referring to this specific type of harassment. If they exist, they certainly aren't being enforced. Of course I know that stalking is illegal and restraining orders can be obtained against people committing some types of harassment crimes. Date rape is so prevalent on some campuses that there is talk of changing the law to say that the man has to obtain overt verbal consent from the woman prior to sex. It seems rather silly among civilized men and women but not all people are civilized. I think it's a necessary step in the right direction because it eliminates the socialized male sense of entitlement. You know very well that there's a popular belief that paying for a dinner and a movie buy an entitlement to sex. That's not very civilized. Even less civilized are the men who think they're entitled to have sex with any woman who can't defend herself by virtue of being drunk or without strong-arm protection of some sort. This is all a matter of degree and harassing women on the street falls somewhere on that scale, albeit not at the top end.

If you were a woman you wouldn't say this situation exists in only a small part of this country. Many, perhaps most women have been subjected to it. It isn't an every day occurrence everywhere, of course, but how often does it have to happen before a woman feels unsafe? That's like saying there shouldn't be laws against stalking because not every woman on every block is stalked every day.

Freedom of speech does not give you the legal right to threaten to kill your neighbor nor does it give you the right to harass someone with repeated, unwanted phone calls. Every rational person knows the difference between calling someone several times and calling them to the point of harassment. Rational people also know the difference between smiling and saying hello to a woman you pass on the street and harassing her.

You're right, you can't teach a misogynist to respect women, but you can attach a penalty when he harasses one. Eventually, even fellow misogynists might get to the point where they say, "Hey, don't do that. It'll cost you, man." Sure, the full-blown predators will persist.

I do understand that some behaviors are foolish and sane people avoid placing themselves in dangerous situations. But do we really want to get to (or stay at) the point where women can't feel safe walking down a street in broad daylight?

a reply to: Tangerine

I have a whole speech on this topic, but Ill summarize it with this: people have huddled into cities seeking safety. They have supported laws that have removed responsibility for safety from them, and placed it on "authority". Guns have been confiscated, you can't walk with a stick, and knives have to only be big enough to clean your fingernails. Meanwhile, when someone is being beaten, onlookers have an attitude of "its not my job". So they continue to onlook, and wait for "the authorities" to respond.

The problem isn't catcallers. Or rapists. Or murderers. The problem is relinquishing responsibility to authority.

I live in the country. Some dudes getting his ass kicked, onlookers will break up the fight and try to figure out what they are fighting over. If a woman is being yelled at by her husband/boyfriend, someone is going to tell him to shut the hell up and act right. If someone notices a house being burgled, they will act. We don't have "onlookers" in rural areas. We have people who act.

Now, these two dynamics are generalizations. They aren't a steadfast rule, but a general rule. Someone could misconstrue this as a "pro gun rant". But it really isn't. Its about humans being left unable to defend themselves, and unwilling to defend each other, because they have been made to yield authority over their safety to a third party.

FWIW, i have talked to my wife about this a bit over the last couple of days. Among other women. I have yet to find a single woman, locally, that buys anything in that video. On a sidenote, I asked the fly that i swatted earlier what he thought. He obviously was not impressed with his right to safety. It is a deadly planet, afterall.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You mentioned that if a woman is being yelled at by her husband/boyfriend someone would tell him to shut up and act "right", but would they do the same if it were a woman yelling at her husband/boyfriend? The problem with getting involved is that most people aren't going to put their own belief systems aside to do what's fair, they'll show favortism, sexism, or homophobia.

a reply to: arpgme

"Fair" isn't part of the real world. Despite our desire for it to be so.

I have never seen a guy defenseless against a female assailant. i know it happens...but it is so foreign to me that I just don't know what I would do.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I wasn't talking about a "defenselessness" man, I was asking if a woman were yelling at her husband/boyfriend would people people get involved to stop it, like they would if it were a man yelling at his wife/girlfriend. If not, then that right there shows the problem of "getting involved". People usually respond with bias rather than fairness.

a reply to: arpgme

The principle that we should discuss to put this in context is "0-100". How much energy needs to be expended. To analyze:

- A man yelling at a woman. Potential risk: he could cause serious bodily injury to her in short order. Threat assessment: 90%-ish, intervention needed
- A woman yelling at her man. Potential risk: hurt feelings, damage to their relationship. Threat assessment: 0. No action needed unless the status changes (he shows anger, she engages in physical abuse, brandishes a weapon, etc).

I hope this helps clarify.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's just an excuse to try to justify the unfair behavior. Anyone can make up a system of "potentials" with arbitrary numbers whenever they want to justify something.

The fact is, some people were raised to believe that it's ok for a man to be yelled at/verbally abused but not a woman. When people are raised to have biased/sexists beliefs they can't be trusted with the responsibility to stand up to take fair actions.

a reply to: arpgme

If your only intention is to call me a liar so you can launch off on a soapbox rant, then please exclude me. I have no intention having an irrational discussion to promote a personal agenda against something that is wholly untopical.

a reply to: Tangerine

The solution is to make it illegal

That's what I was waiting for

But first, what is street harassment?

Which of these (that aren't already illegal) do we make illegal?

Comments about someone’s appearance, gender, sexual orientation, etc
Vulgar Gestures
Sexually Explicit Comments (e.g., “Hey baby, I’d like a piece of that”)
Leering
Whistling
Barking
Kissing Noises
Following someone
Flashing someone or exposing oneself
Blocking someone’s path
Sexual touching or grabbing (e.g., touching someone’s legs, breasts or butt)
Public masturbation

I wonder if you read through every page at that Hollaback site, some of the experiences - some of the research from all the participating cities and countries? If you did, you probably noticed that this organization has existed for several years and what they've come up with so far is: doing some chalk art, getting together and talking about it and asking for donations

Rape is illegal. Assault, stalking, harassment, discrimination...

There's some interesting info on this page

Do I sound cynical? It's not cynicism - I just think it's a dangerous thing to try and criminalize all unwanted human behavior. Where do we draw the line? Is behavior that makes us feel uncomfortable something that should be against the law? Or only if it's dangerous? How do we know when it's dangerous? If a man calls you a bitch, should he go to jail? Does it depend on where he is when he says it? If he's your dry cleaner - is that just awful, but if he's on the street it becomes a crime?

If a woman calls you a bitch - should she go to jail? Does it need to be a sexual comment before it's considered criminal? How do we determine intent? We could call it hate speech maybe. Is hey, nice ass hate speech?

I have two opinions on this - one is that most of it is harmless even if it is crass and unwanted. My other opinion is that some of it is actually dangerous - but we already have laws in place that deal with those kinds of things, even if those laws don't always result in actual justice

I agree that we can work to change people's minds and change how we treat each other - the past 50 years pretty much proves that. So, as far as that goes - this movement might actually accomplish something. It would be better (I think) if they hit the grade schools, then middle schools - and then followed up again in high school. But even then - most men understand that rape is wrong - it still happens. Do we really want to create an environment where people feel that they can't express attraction without risking imprisonment? Will we have a list of legal words and illegal words? Will it become illegal for men to approach women or speak to them in public?

You see? Life is messy. We can't fix messy - I don't think we should even try

Honestly - I have been working very hard to not just say (out loud) ladies - get a grip :-)

But if I say that - do I run the risk of being booted out of the clique? Do I not truly understand and support women? Is this really feminism?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Tangerine

I have a whole speech on this topic, but Ill summarize it with this: people have huddled into cities seeking safety. They have supported laws that have removed responsibility for safety from them, and placed it on "authority". Guns have been confiscated, you can't walk with a stick, and knives have to only be big enough to clean your fingernails. Meanwhile, when someone is being beaten, onlookers have an attitude of "its not my job". So they continue to onlook, and wait for "the authorities" to respond.

The problem isn't catcallers. Or rapists. Or murderers. The problem is relinquishing responsibility to authority.

I live in the country. Some dudes getting his ass kicked, onlookers will break up the fight and try to figure out what they are fighting over. If a woman is being yelled at by her husband/boyfriend, someone is going to tell him to shut the hell up and act right. If someone notices a house being burgled, they will act. We don't have "onlookers" in rural areas. We have people who act.

Now, these two dynamics are generalizations. They aren't a steadfast rule, but a general rule. Someone could misconstrue this as a "pro gun rant". But it really isn't. Its about humans being left unable to defend themselves, and unwilling to defend each other, because they have been made to yield authority over their safety to a third party.

FWIW, i have talked to my wife about this a bit over the last couple of days. Among other women. I have yet to find a single woman, locally, that buys anything in that video. On a sidenote, I asked the fly that i swatted earlier what he thought. He obviously was not impressed with his right to safety. It is a deadly planet, afterall.

Maybe there was a time long ago when people moved to the "city" to have the protection of being within the city walls. That time is long gone. It's far less safe today to live in the city than in the country. I don't think it's due so much to yielding authority as to anonymity. You're far less likely to defend or be defended by someone you will probably never see again or, if you do see them, won't know their name. I'm all for self-defense, by the way.

The women you know didn't "buy" that the woman in the video had her body checked-out and rude comments made by men she passed on the street and someone didn't harass her by walking next to her for a distance? Or did they think that was just fine?

I have lived in both the city and the country. The country is hardly a bucolic paradise. Whereas in the city anonymity made people "mind their own business", in the country the tradition of minding one's business while simultaneously gossiping about it keeps people from intervening in domestic violence, child abuse, etc. up to the point where it is extreme -- and sometimes not even then. "It's family business" is the theme.

In the case of harassment of women, it isn't a matter of people calling the authorities rather than intervening. As most posts on this thread indicate, the problem is that it's not perceived on the part of men as anything but sport.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The New York State harassment statute refers to (I'm paraphrasing) intent to annoy, cause fear or harass. The "reasonable person" qualifier is often used in law and should probably apply to street harassment. If a reasonable person (ie. the majority of people on the jury/accumulated case law) would consider the behavior to be intended to annoy or harass, it constitutes harassment. I believe a reasonable person would be unlikely to consider a comment directed at a woman such as, "You have beautiful hair" made by a passing man who doesn't impede the woman's movement or make lewd gestures to be harassment. I believe a reasonable person would be likely to consider a comment directed at a woman such as, "I'd like a piece of that!" to be harassment. I believe a reasonable person would be likely to consider lewd gestures directed at a woman to be harassment. Using the "reasonable person" qualifier may actually be a plus because it will cause most men to stop and think before saying something. We grew up having to stop and think before using certain words in front of our parents and teachers. We learn to apply certain standards to the language and gestures we use at home, with friends, and at work (often different standards for each group). Why should there be no standards when men see women walking down the street?

No, it doesn't need to be a sexual comment to be harassment. Chasing someone down the street screaming, "Sinner! You'll burn in Hell!" is harassment.

I'm also of two opinions. I don't want to live in a repressive society but I also think everyone should have the right to walk down the street without fear. I agree that most comments are harmless but there is that reasonable person line that should not be crossed.

The Hollaback group is clearly about educating the public and that's fine--when combined with the legal teeth. That's the part that's still missing. When a couple of wealthy or prominent people get arrested for it and the cases make the media, a discussion will raise the public's consciousness. The social changes that have occurred have almost always happened because a small group started raising hell about something and a public discussion and law followed.

Understand that this is about something incremental. Women do understand that cat-calls are not on the same level as physical assault. But women also understand that things can escalate very quickly and the cat-calls are one step on the escalator.

You ask if this is really feminism. Feminism is the notion that women are equal. In this context it implies that women have as much right as men to walk down a street without being harassed.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't call you a liar. I never said you were saying something false. In fact, your response about how it should be treated differently because of your theoretical "analyzation" of "potentials", confirms what I've already said: the reaction people would have would not be an equal, fair, unbiased reaction.

Feminism is supposedly about gender equality (women being treated as equals), not women being treated as "privileged" or "superior".

If the right thing to do when a man is yelling at a woman is to stop it and see what's wrong, then the same thing should be done when a woman is doing it to a man.

a reply to: arpgme

You don't have to understand rural culture. Nor do you need to understand the different between a curb stomp, and hurt feelings. I do....and it works for me.

a reply to: Tangerine

The ladies that watched that video that I know...the general response was along the lines of, "why would you go into those areas if not to manufacture a response?" and "Well considering where she was walking, seems like it could have been far worse".

The women I know (my wife, the lady i "work for", my wife, my sisters...they all put responsibility on people to manage their own risk here).

A good reason I have never been car jacked: i don't go into areas where that happens. And I carry a gun with me at all time. Were someone to try, it would be a very bad day for them. Hell, even my mom sleeps with a 410 pump action next to her bed. We manage risk.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You don't have to understand rural culture.

If what you described here is true, then I understand at least one thing about the "rural culture", that it promotes sexism: people help if men are yelling at women but not if women are yelling at men.

Nor do you need to understand the different between a curb stomp, and hurt feelings.

If a man is yelling at a woman then that's just "hurt feeling" too, but I guess a women's "hurt feelings" matters more than a man's in your area, rather than them being treated as equal.

Like I said before: When people are raised to have biased/sexists beliefs they can't be trusted with the responsibility to stand up to take fair actions, and until then, the authorities are better help where you can use The Constitution/Amendments to point out your equal rights instead of hoping that some random person's "opinion" who jumps in happens to be on the side of fairness.

a reply to: arpgme

To be honest, this:

If what you described here is true, then I understand at least one thing about the "rural culture", that it promotes sexism: people help if men are yelling at women but not if women are yelling at men.

I don't know what to say....

Other than I am not interested in discussing this any more. I really did expect better.