woman hears over 100 cat calls while walking through nyc

a reply to: arpgme

To be fair, men do handle their feelings differently than women do. I know that in heated pissing match between me & my husband (it happens to all of us, lol) that I'm more liable than he is by far to walk away with hurt feelings & sucking lemons. Him? Rolls off him like water. I think it has something to do with the social interactions between men that they already know how to wrangle -- they're not going to be as torn to pieces (if at all) if another guy tosses out a lowbrow stream of words. Women on the other hand, we tend to stew in it. It doesn't roll off our shoulders, we fume & simmer or we nurse a devastated feelings, etc. Men aren't exactly wired to do that, especially not to the extent women are.

That's not to say men are blocks of unfeeling ice, they do have feelings. It just takes more than insults or a nasty outburst to wear them down.

Edit: To be clear, I'm speaking in a very broad sense here regarding verbal exchanges. Outright verbal abuse is outright, and would have people speaking up whether the offender is male or female. In this sense, I'm talking about disagreements escalating, drunks, etc rather than pervasive abusive exchanges.

a reply to: Nyiah

its ok. Men and women ARE different. Fundamentally so. Like, right down or our DNA/chromosomes. any reasonable person would not expect others to pretend that we aren't different.

I treat my wife like a woman. Meaning, I would never tell her she's an "eff up" when she drops a glass in the floor. My male counterparts? Absolutely. Then I'd smile at them and we'd have a chuckle. While I stood there and watched them pick up their mistake. My wife? Im going to trip over myself trying to help her.

Why? Because she is a woman, who has different expectations from our interactions together.

Its not sexist. I LOL at any accusations of such. No more than my pointing out my latin wife doesn't get a sunburn as easily as her pasty husband is racist. Fact is fact. Truth is truth. We are different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly right, our communication expectations tend to be different and we can interpret what is said either literally, figuratively, or some women go the extra mile and jump to unrelated conclusions (I'm not one of them)

My husband & I don't mince words, we speak plainly & sometimes bluntly to each other. Sometimes that rubs one of us the wrong way, especially if something was worded poorly. One sometimes gets the wrong idea & goes on the defensive (aka feelers are getting sore for the wrong reasons) No harm, no fowl, we understand each other enough to know there's not going to be any mortal wounding of emotions short of a brain tumor changing behavior.

a reply to: Nyiah

i can't speak bluntly to my wife. Which is fine....i am really good with the art of communication. Mostly honed by learning how to live with the woman I love.

But her? She is blatant and blunt. She is the kick in the keister that I need. The reality check that slaps me in the face. And the nurturing goddess. All wrapped into one.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.

I mentioned before that I believe in using common sense and not putting oneself at unnecessary risk. I also believe in self defense. Nevertheless, there are probably women who have to walk to work in that area. What about them? There may be women who live in that area and have to walk to stores and to the bus or their vehicles. What about them?

Clearly, the woman in the video walked in those areas to demonstrate what it's like for a woman. Sorry, but the response of the women you know was just code for "She asked for it" and "She wanted it." As one of the women you know pointed out, it could have been worse which probably would have elicited the response, "She deserved it."

It's not unheard of for people to blame crime victims as a form of psychological self-defense. By convincing oneself that a rape victim was wearing something she shouldn't have worn or was someplace she shouldn't have been, the person making the accusations feels immunity from the same crime. She convinces herself that only women who have done something wrong (ie. asked for it) get raped. She believes that she will never do anything to "ask for it" and, thus, will be safe. It's pure illusion.

Are you suggesting that women arm themselves to walk down a street and use the gun if harassed?

a reply to: Tangerine

Well....someone who climbs into a tigers pen can absolutely be said to be asking for whatever ill events happen to them inside that tigers cage.

If she were a random woman trying to get to work, then maybe not. But this was a video of a woman going to areas she KNEW she would be accosted in. She climbed into the tigers pen.

Hell, I can't even be sure that they didn't have actors to stage the worst of the harassment. Or that she didn't happen upon a group of mentally ill people living in a group home and hanging out in front of it together. Or that those guys didn't notice that they were being recorded, and decided to play it up for the cameras.

I mentioned in a prior post: science requires control groups, etc. This wasn't scientific. Its doesn't lay bare any problems, other than the seeming problem we have where sensationalistic journalism is a proxy for rational discussion.


ETA: yes. If you are going to go walking down the street, you need to be prepared to defend yourself. Where im from, you are more likely to be attacked by an animal than a person. Animals don't observe rights.

Me? If i am going into a city, i am always carrying my .40 S&W. And there are a couple other guns in the car.

Do I recommend she shoot an attacker? Hell yes. Emphatically.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Nyiah

its ok. Men and women ARE different. Fundamentally so. Like, right down or our DNA/chromosomes. any reasonable person would not expect others to pretend that we aren't different.

I treat my wife like a woman. Meaning, I would never tell her she's an "eff up" when she drops a glass in the floor. My male counterparts? Absolutely. Then I'd smile at them and we'd have a chuckle. While I stood there and watched them pick up their mistake. My wife? Im going to trip over myself trying to help her.

Why? Because she is a woman, who has different expectations from our interactions together.

Its not sexist. I LOL at any accusations of such. No more than my pointing out my latin wife doesn't get a sunburn as easily as her pasty husband is racist. Fact is fact. Truth is truth. We are different. Not better. Not worse. Just different.

This will probably come as a surprise but I agree with you. Women and men are different. Two men can get into a physical fight and an hour later they might be drinking beer together. You'll never see that between two women. Women who have a serious disagreement will often be enemies for life. This may be gender coding across species. Male dogs will fight for dominance but female dogs have been known to fight to the death. Much larger male grizzly bears will usually not challenge smaller female grizzlies with cubs because they know the penalty is too high: the females will fight to the death. Perhaps this is because males banded together to defend collective territory and females defended smaller personal territory such as offspring.

This may also explain why men will ferociously defend their wives, mothers, and daughters against other men but often have a very different attitude about "free ranging" females whom many regard as free game. Of course, we have overcome many encoded behaviors in order to live in a modern world. We no longer live in clans of 30 people. It's no longer unheard of or practical for men to wander in war bands or for women to never even consider moving about beyond the protection of the collective clan. As a society, we've decided to live in a different world and with that came the notion that women are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

a reply to: Nyiah

I understand that, generally speaking, men and women use different parts of their brains and therefore they think differently (and handle emotions differently).

My point was, if a person believes in feminism, that women are not lower than men but equal to men and should be treated the same, then how can it be ok for a woman to yell at a man but not for a man to do the same?

And getting back to the video on the first page:

If it's considered sexual "street" harassment for a man to say "hello beautiful" to a women he doesn't know but finds attractive, as this video suggests, then shouldn't it be considered sexual "street" harassment when a women does the same?

a reply to: Tangerine

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.

This is why I linked that page - this - exactly

You and I are both reasonable people (probably) Do we agree on this?

No - we do not :-)

Using the "reasonable person" qualifier may actually be a plus because it will cause most men to stop and think before saying something.

They sure as hell will - because now a compliment might get them arrested

Why should there be no standards when men see women walking down the street?

With laws that specifically cover rape, assault and actual harassment, why are we trying to create laws that protect women from life? Are we hothouse flowers? Do we require a legal burqa? Is this about equality - or something else?

Who protects men from assault? Do you think this isn’t an issue? Are they really two separate issues - one for women and one for men?

Criminal behavior is the problem - not crass behavior. Men are not the problem. Men that prey on women are the problem. Not all men on the street - though crude and rude they may be - are a known threat that should be dealt with BEFORE they’ve committed an actual crime

Do we just cast our nets wider and wider hoping to catch a few bad apples?

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.

We can’t legislate ourselves a life without fear

Understand that this is about something incremental.

I do understand that - in fact - I do believe I mentioned that :-)

Since the women’s movement began - the civil rights movement - so many things have changed. So, do we wait for our culture to catch up - or do we just start coming down like the wrath of god on these ungentlemanly sons o’bitches now?

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.

Is fear a legitimate reason for an arrest? Preemptive strikes are a realistic way to deal with this fear?

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.

It’s more than a notion. It also means more than one thing to different people - like most ideas, beliefs, philosophies, ideologies...

Women have the right to not be harrassed? People have the right to not be harassed

And anyway - that isn’t what I meant when I asked …

Is feminism nothing more than a sorority?

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You said, “With laws that specifically cover rape, assault and actual harassment, why are we trying to create laws that protect women from life? Are we hothouse flowers? Do we require a legal burqa? Is this about equality - or something else?”

We agree that street harassment is part of a woman’s life. Apparently, we don’t agree that it shouldn't be part of a woman's life. No, women are not hothouse flowers. Women are entitled to walk down a street without being harassed. It’s as simple as that. They’re entitled to jobs and equal pay and to be able to ride public transportation without being groped. The same men who harass women on the street likely work with women and certainly interact with women in environments other than on the street. How do you think they treat those women?

You asked, “Who protects men from assault?” The potential male assaulter’s/harasser’s knowledge that there’s a significant risk that a penalty will result from the behavior protects the male victims from it. The risk that the criminal will get arrested or get his ass kicked or at least injured fending off an ass-kicking protects men walking down the street from harassment. The same is true of overt assault. Also, significantly, the cultural understanding that one man is not inherently better than another protects men. It's significant that this is probably not necessarily so when the man walking down the street is of a different race/heritage or gay and the majority of men in the vicinity are of a different race/heritage and sexual preference.

Do men get assaulted? Yes, they do. In what way does that fact cancel out the situation with women?

No, we don’t wait for our culture to catch up. The women’s movement and the civil rights movement would never have existed without people demanding change now.

No, fear is not a legitimate reason for an arrest. Harassment resulting in fear or reasonably believed likely to elicit fear is reason for an arrest—or perhaps a ticket at first. The idea is to eliminate the predatory sense of entitlement that exists among the men who do harass women. The men will actually have to think twice before opening their mouths and yelling at or approaching total strangers. I don’t understand the concern. What cop is going to issue a ticket to a guy who says, “Hi, nice day isn’t it? My name is Bill”? They’ll issue tickets for extreme behavior.

You expressed concern about pre-emptive strikes. This suggests that you don’t see a problem with men harassing women. There are no pre-emptive strikes. The man has committed an act of harassment.

Women learn very quickly to distinguish between a friendly and appropriate approach of an interested man and the approach or glance or words of a predator. It’s survival strategy and humans are hard-wired to assess threat.

Watch women on the street who are being cat-called. Their bodies tense-up and they walk faster. They’re able to tell that cat-calls are intended to intimidate and carry an unspoken threat (ie. You don’t belong here. I can do whatever I want to you). Even if the cat-calls take the form of flattery (ie. “Great ass, honey!”), it’s a form of expressing power over the woman. The man feels entitled to openly comment about a woman’s body to the woman. In order for him to feel entitled to do that, he has to perceive himself as having power and authority over her. He sure as hell isn’t going to yell that at the female bank manager where he’s applied for a loan or at a policewoman. Nor will he tolerate another male yelling that at his mother or his sister or his daughter. That, in itself, should tell you two things: the intent behind cat-calling is not benign and men know it.

a reply to: Tangerine
Women don't always agree on this sort of thing Tangerine - and that's just one part of this problem. Sometimes women like to think they are in a position to decide things for all women. I like to think that feminism means women are allowed to decide for themselves who and what they want to be - and to provide them with the same freedoms as have most men. Not even all men are as free as other men. We're human. Men and women aren't the same thing - there are thousands of variations when it comes to gender, and not everyone is going to behave exactly the way we like. Trying to decide what's harmful and what's not is an ongoing process - but we have the basics covered

I see all this as an attempt to regulate human behavior - in accordance with some women's delicate sensibilities. I'd like to think that we could agree that most men make harmless if crude comments that some women don't appreciate. You see it as a major violation and a crime...

So, let's agree that if a man grabs my bag - that's a crime. If a man grabs me (a form of assault - in varying degrees) or hurts me - it's a crime. If I'm on the job and a coworker sexually harasses me - crime. Stalking - crime. Rape - crime. Actual threats - crime

All of these are difficult enough to prosecute. A woman has a hard enough time going forward with a rape accusation in this country (and elsewhere). How do we start splitting hairs on this he said/she said rudeness scenario? A woman claims a construction worker says she has a nice ass - she calls a cop? He gets a ticket? What if she decides you have pretty hair? or I like your dress is harassment?

Do we really want to live in a society where if a woman is offended or afraid - that automatically means a crime has been committed?

Women learn very quickly to distinguish between a friendly and appropriate approach of an interested man and the approach or glance or words of a predator. It’s survival strategy and humans are hard-wired to assess threat.

I don't think all women have learned this - and I certainly don't believe we're infallible. Are you saying we can depend on this innate ability? If she says it's a crime - it's a crime?

You expressed concern about pre-emptive strikes. This suggests that you don’t see a problem with men harassing women. There are no pre-emptive strikes. The man has committed an act of harassment.

It suggests no such thing. You really want to go there? My sense of outrage not enough to suit you?

Preemptive strikes - arresting men who have no intention of harming anyone simply because you've decided that they might?

Alternative ways of looking at this - and this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Though the phrase "sexual harassment" is generally acknowledged to include clearly damaging and morally deplorable behavior, its boundaries can be broad and controversial. Accordingly, misunderstandings can occur. In the US, sexual harassment law has been criticized by persons such as the criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the legal writer and libertarian Eugene Volokh, for imposing limits on the right to free speech.[

Other critics assert that sexual harassment is a very serious problem, but current views focus too heavily on sexuality rather than on the type of conduct that undermines the ability of women or men to work together effectively. Viki Shultz, a law professor at Yale University comments, "Many of the most prevalent forms of harassment are designed to maintain work-particularly the more highly rewarded lines of work-as bastions of male competence and authority."[105] Feminist Jane Gallop sees this evolution of the definition of sexual harassment as coming from a "split" between what she calls "power feminists" who are pro-sex (like herself) and what she calls "victim feminists", who are not. She argues that the split has helped lead to a perversion of the definition of sexual harassment, which used to be about sexism but has come to be about anything that's sexual.

Emphasis mine

I've been harassed Tangerine, and I've been in a few situations. I know the difference between a threat and an annoyance. Never mind that my opinion is different from yours - you don't get to decide for me what I should be afraid of or what should make me angry

I also think that for some women, feminism is more of a team sport. I'm a humanist. I'm opposed to subjugation, segregation - bigotry and the rest of it. I'm pro civil rights. Feminism is necessary but not special. All of our rights and freedoms are important - I personally don't want to see the advancement of women come at the expense of men

Maybe I'm just one of those Male-identified chicks you hear about sometimes :-)

I wouldn't mind at all if we (here, and around the world) stopped tolerating the abuses so many women are subjected to on a daily basis - believe you me. I think we can accomplish this without criminalizing men for being men

In any case - it will be interesting to see where this whole thing goes - as i mentioned - so far it's mostly been about chalk art, chatting and donations - and speaking engagements for Ms. Emily May

Not for nothing Tangerine - but I do believe talking about it is a useful thing. Talking is what brings change. Talking - and then even more talking...

Same as this

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

We agree about much. Men sometimes make crude and inappropriate comments that, because of the social situation, are essentially harmless. They're said in situations where the power is somewhat equalized and there is little danger of escalation. But the cat-call situation is different. The object of the cat-calls (and she is an object in the eyes of the cat-callers) doesn't know the men yelling these things and, importantly, there are a number of people witnessing it and doing nothing to prevent it. Essentially, it's a declaration that she's walking through enemy territory.

Of course this is an attempt to regulate human behavior but not "within the context of some women's delicate sensibilities" as you put it. I think I've made it clear that I don't regard yelling "You have pretty hair" or "I like your dress" as rising to the level of actionable harassment.

There are times when Alan Dershowitz has his head up his ass. He regards torture as justifiable in some circumstances. I regard free speech as vitally important but the legal right to free speech does not protect harassing speech or threatening speech. I'm not calling for the death penalty or jail time, after all. I'm calling for the equivalent of a parking in a loading zone ticket for egregious cat-call harassment. You know, for the sort of cat-calls that even most men would regard as wholly inappropriate. The cat-calls are directed at the woman but often intended for male friends as a "membership signifer". Harassment is very much sexism. It's intended to unify men in preventing women from enjoying full participation in society.

If you knew me IRL, you'd consider me to be far more of a power feminist than a victim feminist. I can't tell you how many times I've told a woman to "Stop whining and stand up and do it!" I've been in the company of men socially and professionally for so many years that I'm pretty oblivious to most of their crudities. I've ignored most cat-callers and I've said things to a few of them that embarrassed them in front of their male friends (risky).

I don't agree that making a small official effort to curb street harassment of women comes at the expense of men.The men who witness cat-calling are socially pressured to participate or at least laugh or look the other way. Raising awareness and opening a dialogue might, over time, give the more "evolved" among them an opportunity to say it's not cool. This all takes time. I'm simply suggesting a jump-start.

Personally, I've got far bigger fish to fry. This is not a personal crusade. In fact, I don't think I've ever discussed the topic before. Thanks for the opportunity.

a reply to: Tangerine

Had to star that Tangerine

:-)

More to say - no time to say it this morning

a reply to: Tangerine

There are times when Alan Dershowitz has his head up his ass. He regards torture as justifiable in some circumstances. I regard free speech as vitally important but the legal right to free speech does not protect harassing speech or threatening speech.

If you try to understood his views on torture from the angle he delivers them - you might be surprised:

As Dershowitz has repeatedly claimed, in print and in interviews, torture is morally repugnant. This (intuitive) view, however, is insufficient (on Dershowitz’s view, as on Michael Walzer’s) to decide whether or not torture might be politically justified in particular cases. Dershowitz claims that, given the inevitability of torture, as a democracy we simply must provide some judicial oversight of this practice. Such oversight (in the form of “torture warrants”), Dershowitz claims, will limit the amount of torture currently practiced by agents of the U.S. government.

So, not justifiable - the best we can hope for is to try and rein it in as best we can and make it more difficult or impossible to do. Not that different from what you're proposing :-)

We can come at a problem from several different angles - they can work together to change how society feels about things - death penalty, torture - sexism

Anyhow - that bit I showed you wasn't supposed to be about Dershowitz

I said earlier on (so long ago...) that you could make a case for it being hate speech - seems to me that would be the only workable angle if you want catcalling to become illegal

Personally, I've got far bigger fish to fry.

In a nutshell. We've got far bigger fish to fry. My entire argument in one pithy sentence

I wish you would pass that along to all the gals at Hollaback :-)

We don't actually agree on this one. Not all women will see this the same way - or all men. Same as most of humanity's major (or minor) disagreements. Fighting about it in public is our best hope for change

Gay marriage is a pretty good example of how this works. No shots fired - look how far it's come

Just by talking

P.S. Sorry so long getting back :-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Tangerine

There are times when Alan Dershowitz has his head up his ass. He regards torture as justifiable in some circumstances. I regard free speech as vitally important but the legal right to free speech does not protect harassing speech or threatening speech.

If you try to understood his views on torture from the angle he delivers them - you might be surprised:

As Dershowitz has repeatedly claimed, in print and in interviews, torture is morally repugnant. This (intuitive) view, however, is insufficient (on Dershowitz’s view, as on Michael Walzer’s) to decide whether or not torture might be politically justified in particular cases. Dershowitz claims that, given the inevitability of torture, as a democracy we simply must provide some judicial oversight of this practice. Such oversight (in the form of “torture warrants”), Dershowitz claims, will limit the amount of torture currently practiced by agents of the U.S. government.

So, not justifiable - the best we can hope for is to try and rein it in as best we can and make it more difficult or impossible to do. Not that different from what you're proposing :-)

We can come at a problem from several different angles - they can work together to change how society feels about things - death penalty, torture - sexism

Anyhow - that bit I showed you wasn't supposed to be about Dershowitz

I said earlier on (so long ago...) that you could make a case for it being hate speech - seems to me that would be the only workable angle if you want catcalling to become illegal

Personally, I've got far bigger fish to fry.

In a nutshell. We've got far bigger fish to fry. My entire argument in one pithy sentence

I wish you would pass that along to all the gals at Hollaback :-)

We don't actually agree on this one. Not all women will see this the same way - or all men. Same as most of humanity's major (or minor) disagreements. Fighting about it in public is our best hope for change

Gay marriage is a pretty good example of how this works. No shots fired - look how far it's come

Just by talking

P.S. Sorry so long getting back :-)

Dershowitz wants his cake and to eat it, too. I've lost a lot of respect for him. Do I realize that torture will continue to happen? Yes. Does that justify ever condoning it? No. Dershowitz's idea of torture warrants is repugnant. The notion that torture warrants will limit the amount of torture is absurd. It will simply legalize some of it. Dershowitz is a very intelligent man. This convinces me that he's also sociopathic. But, on to the other topic.

Cat-calls, in the extreme, are hate speech and should be enforced as such. As we know, hate speech enforcement is sporadic and lax. In this case, at this time, cat-calling won't even be labeled hate speech. Yeah, gays have only existed for 150,000+ years and marriage has only existed about 10,000 years and a few states have finally gotten around to legalizing gay marriage. Actually, I think the government should get out of the marriage business and issue civil unions only.

Great conversation.