# Ladies: How bad was this? (A slight cat call I guess) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 16, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552 "2013-02-16T22:52:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/121 "2013-02-18T22:56:05Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > Making personal comments about someone’s appearance is rude, yes. This is true whether said comment is “You’re a fat whale” or “You’re a hot piece of meat.” This is also true whether the object of your comment can hear you or not. > > Words like this foster attitudes. What he’s doing here is modeling for his son that it’s okay to objectify women instead of realizing that they are human beings just like him and treating them as such. He’s modeling this regardless whether the women in question could hear him or not. > > He’s also reinforcing this objectifying attitude in his own mind, which is also true whether the women OR his son could hear him or not. It’s a vicious cycle. He objectifies women in his head, which leads to objectifying them out loud, which reinforces objectifying them in his head. Have you ever had a romantic or sexual relationship? If so, did it ever occur to you that your partner was physically attractive? If so, were you still able to think of them as a human being? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/122 "2013-02-18T22:58:57Z")
I think you’re supposed to say “[Hubba Hubba](http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-oqLVJbt77hY4b/parenthood_1989_father_son_talk/).” ---
**Author:** ![maggenpye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maggenpye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maggenpye)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/123 "2013-02-18T23:24:29Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Have you ever had a romantic or sexual relationship? > > If so, did it ever occur to you that your partner was physically attractive? > > If so, were you still able to think of them as a human being? Did it occur to you that there’s a difference between how we interact with lovers and complete strangers? ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/124 "2013-02-18T23:32:48Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Please don’t take this as an attempt to argue, but as an earnest question: > > I have a lot of trouble understanding “objectification” rhetoric. Can you please explain how this is “objectification”? It feels like there’s a line between finding someone attractive, and reducing them to being an object whose sole purpose in life should be providing sexual pleasure. I don’t see how Shakes thinking they were hot flung him into the territory of mentally robbing them of personhood. Is second this. I have no idea how thinking someone is hot is objectifying them? If he had said something to his son about how they looked smart or kind, would people be up in arms about objectifying them as “just a brain” or “just a heart”? Some people are really way too sensitive. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/125 "2013-02-18T23:33:26Z")
> [@maggenpye](#): > > Did it occur to you that there’s a difference between how we interact with lovers and complete strangers? Of course. But **Kaio** ’s remarks leave no room for that, that I can see. Perhaps we will see some clarification. In any event, even with complete strangers, not all opinions about appearance are reductionist objectification. > [@Jragon](#): > > I have a lot of trouble understanding “objectification” rhetoric. Can you please explain how this is “objectification”? It feels like there’s a line between finding someone attractive, and reducing them to being an object whose sole purpose in life should be providing sexual pleasure. Of course. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/126 "2013-02-18T23:42:43Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > I have a lot of trouble understanding “objectification” rhetoric. Well, it doesn’t help that the posters in this thread who are addressing the objectification won’t do anything more than simply call it such–especially **colandar** , who doesn’t seem to be capable of much more than crude and somewhat childish condescension. > [@Jragon](#): > > It feels like there’s a line between finding someone attractive, and reducing them to being an object whose sole purpose in life should be providing sexual pleasure. The objectification relevant here pertains to the wider arena of language use in social discourse, and the role that such language use plays in reinforcing power relationships. The fact that the OP or his son found the women attractive is irrelevant. That’s just hormones. However, we need to be able to see the utterance of “sexy mommas”–the OP’s very first comment–as a particular kind of [speech act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act) that taps into larger dynamics. Effectively, he’s _ **labeling them with a particular function when he does that** _–whether he means to or not–and it’s a function granted (or not granted) solely by the male. It has nothing to do with the OP’s intentions, or whether he’s a “good” or “bad” person. It’s about the larger social connection between language use and power relationships. But if you want to understand “objectification rhetoric,” you need to see that this is not about individuals, or individual intentions. The objectification happens whether they hear what he says or not, and whether they like what he says or not. And it’s not necessarily happening to them as individuals–though by their reaction they clearly felt it was. There is a separate issue here of socialization, too, (between parent and child). A father (or a mother) can ingrain objectification of women in ways that don’t even involve language, though language is probably the most prevalent way. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/127 "2013-02-18T23:46:06Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > A different sort of irony might be gently making fun of the fact that his fourteen-year-old son was pointing out women to him. That’s what I already clarified in post #83 above. ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/128 "2013-02-18T23:48:09Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Well, it doesn’t help that the posters in this thread who are addressing the objectification won’t do anything more than simply call it such–especially **colandar** , who doesn’t seem to be capable of much more than crude and somewhat childish condescension. I’m pretty sure I haven’t used the word “objectification” in this thread, so probably you are mad at me about something else. Your “irony” distinction is an interesting question, but does not really apply to the scenario discussed in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![maggenpye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maggenpye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maggenpye)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/129 "2013-02-18T23:49:39Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Of course. But **Kaio** ’s remarks leave no room for that, that I can see. Perhaps we will see some clarification. > > In any event, even with complete strangers, not all opinions about appearance are reductionist objectification. > > Of course. I think she’s being perfectly clear. In the situation that the thread is all about i.e. - commenting on strangers (the women) in public for the purposes of bonding with someone else (the son). He was not attempting to communicate with the women, they were objects he was commenting on rather than people he was communicating with. A good paintjob on a car would have served as well, and would be less likely to care. If the person being commented on is not included in the conversation, or their opinion is not considered valid, they’re being objectified. Some people \*object \*(heh) to this more than others. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/130 "2013-02-18T23:52:22Z")
Guizot, Thanks for the non-venting, reasoned reply. I can see how using the OP’s expression\* would label those women with a particular function. What I do not see if how labeling them with a particular function is tantamount to a denial of all human aspects of those individuals. Focus on A is not denial of B. Now, if someone wants to make the case that there’s too much emphasis on women’s looks and sexuality and not enough on other aspects, I agree. Perhaps this thread I started could benefit from your nuanced analysis? [Women: What are the psychological effects of overemphasis on women's looks and sexuality? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=648016) - Which I’d never use and won’t argue in favor of. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/131 "2013-02-18T23:54:38Z")
> [@colander](#): > > I’m pretty sure I haven’t used the word “objectification” in this thread, so probably you are mad at me about something else. You don’t need to use the word itself–it’s the subtext of your argument, which is a valid one, but it might get through to the OP more effectively with a different tact. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/132 "2013-02-18T23:59:53Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > I can see how using the OP’s expression\* would label those women with a particular function. What I do not see if how labeling them with a particular function is tantamount to a denial of all human aspects of those individuals. Personally, I don’t think it _is_ tantamount. It only approaches that to the degree that other aspects of society and specific conditions will let it. Women can take on their own agency in various ways, depending on circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/133 "2013-02-19T00:02:14Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > You don’t need to use the word itself–it’s the subtext of your argument, which is a valid one, but it might get through to the OP more effectively with a different tact. Wow, my first post deconstruction! I’ll need to buy some better shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/134 "2013-02-19T01:01:51Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Of course. But **Kaio** ’s remarks leave no room for that, that I can see. Uh, why not? Especially since I find my SO attractive in large part _because_ I like him as a human being. > [@Jragon](#): > > I have a lot of trouble understanding “objectification” rhetoric. Can you please explain how this is “objectification”? It feels like there’s a line between finding someone attractive, and reducing them to being an object whose sole purpose in life should be providing sexual pleasure. I don’t see how Shakes thinking they were hot flung him into the territory of mentally robbing them of personhood. What guizot said, basically. The social dynamics of our culture are impossible to escape. I’d also add that on an individual level, there’s a difference between an attraction which makes you wish to get to know someone better, and one which makes you wish to comment on their appearance without actually engaging in a conversation. The latter is an indication that your expectation is that the attractive person is there for you to gawp at and take your visual jollies from, rather than an recognition that this is FIRST a human being, and SECOND one who happens to be attractive. In other words, a recognition of the fact that a person has complex layers, rather than being one-dimensional in the way you find most pleasing. It would be creepy if someone got stuck on “You’re really good at math” as the only dimension of me that they recognized, too. The main difference is that, given our cultural history, it would take me longer to figure out that “math” was the only thing he saw in me. So, in this situation, had Shakes noticed an attractive woman, and because of that decided to walk over and strike up some small talk, that would be a non-objectifying recognition of attractiveness. Instead, he catcalled. There was no indication that he recognized or was interested in their other layers of character. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/135 "2013-02-19T01:42:32Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Please don’t take this as an attempt to argue, but as an earnest question: > > I have a lot of trouble understanding “objectification” rhetoric. Can you please explain how this is “objectification”? It feels like there’s a line between finding someone attractive, and reducing them to being an object whose sole purpose in life should be providing sexual pleasure. I don’t see how Shakes thinking they were hot flung him into the territory of mentally robbing them of personhood. I personally don’t use the word “objectification” to mean an object whose sole purpose is providing sexual pleasure. Treating someone like their sole purpose is to provide sexual pleasure is just one form of objectification. You can objectify people in many other ways, and not all of them are bad. I like Sartre’s [definition of objectification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausea_%28novel%29#Sartre.27s_philosophy). An object cannot create meaning. It must get its meaning from a person. A person can create meaning for objects and for herself. We objectify a person when we behave like the meaning we give her is her only meaning - ignoring that she can create meaning for herself. When we ignore someone else’s meaning-creating ability, we are essentially treating them like objects because objects can’t create their own meaning. By calling a woman a “sexy momma” the OP was defining her in a way she did not want to be defined. She defines herself as much more than her looks. There was conflict there and the OP did not take into account her side of it before he spoke out. You can argue that the objectification was harmless, or not as bad as some other forms of objectification, but I think the using the term “objectification” to describe his behavior is perfectly accurate. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/136 "2013-02-19T02:02:50Z")
I don’t understand what is so hard to comprehend, women would like to be able to walk around without hearing how bad you’d want to fuck them. Doing it with your kid is a million times worse because it just reminds them their daughters will someday have to hear how bad asshole jr wants to fuck them also. ---
**Author:** ![panaccione](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@panaccione](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panaccione)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/137 "2013-02-19T02:50:27Z")
Shame on you, Shakes! Shame! Shame! Shame! Jk : ) ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/138 "2013-02-19T02:59:44Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Even if sexual harassment is a call for attention, or a form of male bonding, it can still be used as a test of boundaries. Even if it’s not meant to be a test of boundaries, an unanswered catcall makes an abuser feel safe enough to continue his behavior. In my experience, as a 100-lb woman who nonetheless comports herself with a lot of confidence and generally finds it easy to mold other’s behavior with my own actions: confronting them with aggression escalated the bad behavior, sometimes to a scary and dangerous level. While acknowledging it (with eye contact) and dismissing it (by not engaging them positively or negatively), takes the wind right out of their sails. I’ve been experimenting with this for 10 years; but it’s JMHO. YMMV. Etc. Your average dude who screams things at strange woman on the street is not going to feel ‘unsafe’ in any way if said woman screams back. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/139 "2013-02-19T03:02:35Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > I don’t understand what is so hard to comprehend, women would like to be able to walk around without hearing how bad you’d want to fuck them. Doing it with your kid is a million times worse because it just reminds them their daughters will someday have to hear how bad asshole jr wants to fuck them also. Aren’t you doing a little bit of conflating here? Who said anything to any woman anywhere in this thread about how badly they wanted to fuck them? “Hot mama” is commenting on that woman’s attractiveness, _not_ on the level of desire one has to fuck that woman. It’s still inappropriate but not what you are describing it as here. ---
**Author:** ![MacCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maccat/32/216_2.png) [@MacCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacCat)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552/140 "2013-02-19T03:14:30Z")
> [@Kaio](#): > > So, in this situation, had Shakes noticed an attractive woman, and because of that decided to walk over and strike up some small talk, But that _wasn’t_ the situation. The situation was his son nudging him about a couple of attractive women. > [@](#): > > Instead, he catcalled. No he didn’t. He unintelligently responded _ **to his son** _ loudly enough to be overheard by the women. I believe it _was_ inappropriate, and I think the woman responded very well. She rightly embarrassed him. I don’t interact with my 19 yo son (or my 26 yo daughter) on sexual matters in that way, but I don’t think what he did was that terrible. I hope it (and this thread) was an educational experience for both Shakes and his son. I would consider it a positive experience for them if they do, especially because the women don’t seem to have been hurt, but rather handled putting someone in their place very effectively. They probably had a good laugh between them seeing how apologetic, embarrassed and flustered he was because of their very sharp retort. Well done on their part. If it had been two other women, not as assertive or confident, it would have been worse, of course, but we’re discussing this circumstance. This lesson should preclude the possibility of that happening in the future though, which is a good thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ladies-how-bad-was-this-a-slight-cat-call-i-guess/650552.md?page=8)