Those are laws being proposed, and not in the US. I stand by my earlier statement: No men are being called to task for wolf whistling on construction sites.
As for the commercials, I said YMMV. Apparently it does. Perhaps when we someone who is being called to task uses that as a defense, we can see how well it flies. But I’m not seeing it happening, so one wonders why not if it would be effective.
Several problems here. For one, you’ve already suggested that in these kinds of situations, women might have hated it but “kept silent because of the times”. Two; you’re assuming competency, and again, you’ve already suggested a situation where men were grossly mistaken about what women thought. This is not competence, even if we’re assuming pure ignorance and not malice. Three, sexist thought often leads not only to sexual harassment, but dismissal of the other sex. I don’t find it hard to believe that a sexist person would reject even the results of a focus group of the opposite sex in favour of their own thoughts on the matter.
Four; we’d have to take into account the other aspects of a focus group. Perhaps the other options were even worse. Perhaps the focus group was specifically selected so as to provide the kind of result they were looking for; a self-serving sample.
Why on earth would a focus group want a self-serving sample? Focus groups are a tool for determining buyer preferences. Faking them or stacking them with people who will answer the way you want completely nullifies the purpose of them.
Again, I grew up in that era, and I grew up around lots of women. Exclusively women, much of the time since my mother was a single mom and hung out with the other single moms in the neighborhood. I don’t recall ANYONE having a problem with wolf whistles. It was seen as flattering by most, and certainly not a prelude to harassment or rape.
But what may have changed over the decades is that wolf whistles became frowned upon, so ‘decent’ people stopped doing it. Leaving wolf whistles to low-lifes and people likely to follow up with more direct harassment. So maybe a wolf whistle today really is more aggressive and demeaning than it used to be.
Well, you haven’t seen it happening because, by your own claims people are not being hauled up in front of judges or ethics committees for wolf whistling 30 years ago. Perhaps if they were you would hear that defense.
As for the ‘America Only’ limit - that’s fine, except this is a global board, and I’m not even American. But if you intended your statement to be limited to the USA, that’s fine. Although I think you’re still wrong that no one gets ‘called out’ for wolf whistling. At least one university in the U.S. defines wolf whistling as sexual harassment, and it is an offence that can get you expelled.
The rule also applies to university employees. It’s a fireable offence.
I’ll bet if I did some digging I’d find a few more examples.
OK, I admit it: I’m old enough to remember 40 or 50 years ago. I’ve also talked to a lot of women of my mother’s generation, the “Greatest Generation” generation (a term Mom hated). It’s not that women were OK with men patting or pinching them on the ass. The term for such behavior was “fresh,” and it was “no way to treat a lady.” Two aunts of mine were waitresses. They got pinched plenty. They hated it, but the expectation of the time was put up and shut up or go into some other line of work. Like nursing. No, wait, they got pinched and patted, too. Or become a stewardess. Nope, pinched, patted, poked, and propositioned. Don’t want to get chased around your desk by your boss (which actually happened to me in the late 70s)? Find another job.
I was trying to explain to my daughter that there are men in power now who were in power when most men in politics or Hollywood got away with doing a Weinstein. That’s what all the jokes about casting couches were about. That doesn’t mean women weren’t angry or that they accepted it. The social and legal structures weren’t there for them to do anything about it, and men held all virtually all the political power and, in fact, all the power in the business world.
To claim it’s presentism is to imply that women liked such treatment or that they had some choice in the matter, which is not true. And assuming women had choices simply because we do now is, in fact, presentism.
…how many of them have you explicitly asked “did you used to have a problem with wolf whistles?”
And what on earth do wolf whistles have to do with the OP? The OP hasn’t provided any examples of the use of the me too hashtag that support the OP. Can you show any usage of the hashtag that reference wolf whistles?
Just to use your example alone: I had to stop using public transportation when I was in my twenties because of the number of men who felt free to “pat me on the posterior” as I rode to and from work. It happened every day. I wore my winter coat to work all that Summer while I saved up to buy a car. Some of them tried to pull it out of the way and get their hands underneath.
And that’s the least unpleasant of the hundreds of stories I could tell. So you can take your “Presentism” and abuse your own posterior.
…the thread isn’t about things that used to be “acceptable” and now are not. Its about is the"recent manifestation of the #MeToo movement is an abuse of presentism." I’m sure if you dig you will find plenty of examples of what you are looking for. But what you are looking for has nothing to do with the OP.
Well, I should have seen it coming.
Having read the reactions I think I have to point out that my initiating this debate stems from my desire to clarify this point and not from my support for those who stand for it.
I understand the indignation and resentment of the people who have had enough of the sexual misconduct of certain men (often in position of power) and if they need to turn me into a target to release their anger, I will accept it for the greater cause that the Me Too movement should really revolutionize relationships between men and women.
…oh give me a break.
You posted a topic for debate.
People have addressed your topic. I’ve asked for cites.
Don’t come back now and claim you are some sort of a victim. People haven’t turned their “indignation and resentment” onto you. We’ve addressed the topic up for debate: if you no longer want to debate your OP (and you didn’t even put up an effort) don’t put the blame on us.
Easy answer to the OP: No, because presentism doesn’t apply here. That would be applying modern morals in interpreting historical events. It’s something like saying “Everyone hated Jesus because he was gay.”
This is just “you did something that was just as inappropriate then as it is now.” The only difference was getting away with it.
I’m not a victim and I don’t put the blame on anybody.
These two statements seem to be at odds.
I agree and consequently withdraw the first one. I am not a victim and blame no one.
…so are you standing by the characterization of responses to you in this thread as “indignation and resentment of the people who have had enough of the sexual misconduct of certain men?” You don’t just think that maybe we disagreed with your OP?
I do not stand by the aforementioned characterization and I agree people disagreed with the OP. It was my mistake and I apologize for it.
…well I’m glad thats sorted then. 
To back up one’s preconceived notions. To support the sunk costs of past ad campaigns, or of a particular product. To prove one’s worth and one’s expertise as a person in charge of advertising. To come up with a result that superiors will agree with.
Those are answers that put aside potential sexism. If we admit to the potential of it, we also have; because one doesn’t believe women are capable of giving the “right” answers without being coached or preselected. Because one’s primary concern is getting to spend some time with women you prefer. Because one dismisses the opinions of all women who do not think like oneself.
There’s plenty of reasons why focus groups would want self-serving samples.
You yourself pointed out the whole “maybe women kept silent because of the times” idea, and you keep seeming to forget it now you’ve suggested it. I’d also suggest to you that “all the women you knew growing up” is not a representative example; at the very least,** nelliebly** has supplied an anecdotal counter-claim.
Sam Stone, I’m skeptical of your claims about these ad campaigns, and I think the devil is in the details here, in terms of both the actions and the audience.
I think there are many women who would appreciate - even today - if they went into a place which had a bunch of attractive and successful-type men and all heads in the place turned in their direction. That doesn’t mean that they would pleased with the same type of attention from some scruffy-looking guys lounging on the corner, or would appreciate whistles from anyone at all.
Perhaps you can find some of these ads on YouTube or somewhere, so we can see what you’re talking about.
Slight nitpick with the bolded part: I always thought that those ads for Nair were aimed at women who wanted the exposed part of their legs to look smooth and hair-free. Shorts don’t have to be short enough tp show pubic hair to attract guys’ attention.