It seems like the issue is that we are addressing catcalling and other behavior that might seem threatening - for example, trying to stop a woman and initiate conversation when she is purposefully walking and exhibiting no signs of willingness to engage. Along with this behavior, lesser forms of engagement - nodding and saying hello, with no real intent of a follow-up conversation - have been lumped in with the offensive behavior.
People are saying that, due to being subject to the former, the latter now risks being perceived as threatening. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy that.
IT IS WHEN ADDRESSED TO A WOMAN WALKING DOWN A BUSY STREET PAYING NO ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE SURROUNDING HER, you dumbfuck troll.
That is the situation we’ve been talking about all through this thread, and that is the context you keep resolutely ignoring so you can dishonestly pretend that we’re trying to forbid casual greetings between strangers who are actually ENCOUNTERING each other’s mutual notice.
“I noticed you’re reading X book by Y author. [pointing to the book being held and noting no visible wedding ring being worn] That’s one of my favorites, how do you like it? Maybe we can get together some time - are you free for coffee?”
Is that harassment or inappropriate? I’m not talking about continued advances after initial rebuke.
Of course there are scenario where hitting on someone is inappropriate. I just find the breadth of those scenario is too wide. Not everyone shares those ideas and it’s not harassment if they don’t. It’s not threatening if they don’t. And it’s not asserting dominance if they don’t. It just means the people have different ideas of what scenario is appropriate to hit on another person.
That’s pretty archaic - and precludes all interaction that doesn’t have a go between. This would eliminate people getting together at a farmer’s market for example.
You’ve found out my secret ploy. I signed up for this site 11 years ago with a clever name just biding my time to post in this thread that I knew would happen. It’s very clever.
Your mistake is thinking that one person’s need takes precedence over anyone else’s. It doesn’t per se. Hitting on someone even a stranger isn’t taking precedence over them. There is no response required.
Sounds good to me - except it’s not outside of social conventions to hit on a stranger.
Why is a book club okay but walking down the street isn’t? If someone went to a book club only for the purpose of discussing a book and was hit on a single time and felt harassed as a result, would you tell them to lighten up, Francis, or add book clubs to the list of places that is unacceptable to be hit on?
I understand that this is the claim you’re making.
I don’t agree with its truth.
Again, I disagree with the rule you’re proposing.
Now, if you used all capital letters to … no, even then, I’d still not be persuaded.
So it should be clear at this point in the discussion that your repetition of the claim is insufficiently persuasive. After all, I’m also repeating my claim, and you’re not persuaded by me; why would you imagine that your repetition would persuade me?
(I admit to not trying the capital letters gambit.)
Contrast makes no difference at all, or at least it should not. Something isn’t made more or less cruel because of the existence of something of a different level of cruelty. All contrasting does is make one *seem *more or less cruel - IOW, you would seem to be drawing a contrast in order to make Kimstu look worse, not in order to give an accurate picture of how cruel or not Kimstu was being.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m against insulting behaviour, and while I’ve missed the mark on the odd occasion I think my posting history would back that up. I don’t think it would be fair to call what was said to you “cruel”, though. In contrast or otherwise.
Well then I guess I’m as insane as Camille Paglia, because I’m in agreement with her. Choices have consequences. Honest feminism ought to acknowledge that, as opposed to trying to make life consequence free (which is impossible) and which is what they are trying to do here. That’s the point.
I note that Ms Paglia makes a point of wearing gender neutral clothing which doesn’t accentuate the female lines of her body. SHE seems to be able to move about without drawing undue attention. /shrug
To me the argument is apparently this: You want to be able to showcase your body in public, and yet condemn others for noticing you showcasing your body. Some forms of noticing are okay, but acknowledging that showcase is not. In order for that to work, you have to overcome a ton of biology and social training. As Ms Paglia again points out:
“The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.”
Granted, she is speaking of campus life, but her point is well taken in the larger world as well. It’s not about clothing (or lack thereof). It’s about a fundamental misconception that these responses are alterable in a simple way and that you can change men by complaint and protest.
It’s not, and you can’t. You’re fighting biology and it has a couple hundred thousand years head start on you.
Call me all the names you like. But at least be honest about your argument. “I should be able to wear whatever I want without any consequences from the opposite sex!” (stamp foot). It’s ridiculous, and is only arguable at all because this society is far more tolerant of social experimentation than much of the rest of the world. And the fact that the actress wasn’t touched, once, in ten hours, by ANY of the “cat-callers” speaks volumes to how tolerant the city is towards her choosing a showcasing mode of dress.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: I’d vote for Paglia for President if I could, even though we disagree on various things.
You can hit on people anywhere, but it needs to be appropriate. The first step is to establish eye contact. If you can’t do that, then move on. Once you’ve established eye contact, evaluate the other person’s body language to see if it’s appropriate to say something. If their body language clearly demonstrates they aren’t interested, move on. And even then there should be appropriate escalation from “Hi” to “Let’s get coffee”.
If you hit on people as you are being introduced to them at the book club, it’s inappropriate. If you hit on people after having a long conversation where it’s clear you both have common interests, it’s appropriate.
Yelling “Hi” to random people is inappropriate as a way to hook up, whether on the street or anywhere else.
WE ARE HAVING AN ARGUMENT IN THE BBQ PIT FORUM, you context-blind asshole. Believe me, if I met you in a civilized social setting I would never say any such thing to you, so it’s completely irrelevant to our discussion of standards of behavior in civilized social settings.
And you still suck sweaty donkey balls at either making or comprehending analogies.
The point is that when you attempt such “lesser forms of engagement” with a woman who’s paying no attention to you, when you’re just one of the strangers on a busy city street whom she’s also paying no attention to, that is rude. That is putting in a request for her attention when she has no reason whatsoever to give it to you.
If the two of you happen to pass on a hiking path or on a small-town sidewalk or something like that, you notice each other and you can say “hi”. But trying to say “hi” to a strange woman on a street full of strangers who has not noticed you, and who has no earthly reason to notice you any more than any of the other strangers around her unless you force yourself on your notice in some way, is impolite.
Because of the old etiquette principle “the roof constitutes the introduction”. That is, if you encounter somebody as fellow participants in a social gathering of some kind, even if you have never met before, you are automatically promoted from “random complete strangers” to “slightly acquainted strangers with identified common interest or social connection”.
For what it’s worth, knowing that you consider “dumb troll” to be a particularly unpleasant insult, I’ll try to remember not to use it on you if ever I feel like offending you.
Yes, that’s inappropriate. I think many women would feel threatened and/or uncomfortable in that situation. Women don’t ride the bus to meet people, and if she’s reading a book that means she wants to place her attention on her book. So I would not do that, and I don’t think you should either, because you might make someone feel threatened or uncomfortable.
Because a book club is a social organization – people join social organizations with the understanding and purpose that they will interact with other people. Walking down the street is not the same.
Italicize all you want. If you paid attention to my posts, you would see that I was agreeing with you in that context. If a person looks to be on their way somewhere, I find it incredibly improper to attempt to delay or engage them. Now, if we are walking in opposite directions, I see nothing wrong with a polite nod and maybe a “hello,” so long as it is done in passing without any intent of attempting to block or obstruct the other person.
Of course, I would find such behavior inappropriate regardless of whether they were in a busy city or a small town. The context where I was saying it was appropriate is when one finds one’s self in a coffee shop, elevator, etc., and the other person is not obviously “engaged” in any activity.
I find you to be an intelligent person (I completely agreed w/ your post in the “liberal troll” thread and found it to be a good assessment), but you seem to be getting overheated in this conversation, quick to jump down the throats without reading the posts for context.
To the extent that you seem to believe the Pit is a social context that requires insult, I don’t agree.
There’s no question the rule of the Pit permit such behavior – but, then, the laws of our society permit even the worst behavior evident on that tape.
This discussion isn’t about what’s permissible by defined rules, but what’s expected by social convention.
Interaction in the Pit allows you to call me a an asshole, to be sure, but it doesn’t require it. Certainly I’ve said nothing to you in this thread, or anyone else in this thread, that’s anywhere near as vituperative as the insults you’ve directed my way. I recognize your freedom under the rules to do it; I don’t see the necessity – especially since in the same breath you’re arguing that I should adopt a highly deferential acceptance of your social norms for other situations.
As I noted in very large letters back in my first post in this threat, what’s not appropriate is to try to attract the attention of a stranger for no legitimate reason.
If you’ve made eye contact with them or encountered them in a setting where it’s reasonable to assume you’ve noticed each other, then you’ve already got each other’s attention, however fleeting and trivial it may be. As I’ve been saying all along, there’s nothing wrong with offering a brief casual greeting in such a situation. But if you’re in a busy public place where you don’t have the other person’s attention and have no reason to expect them to notice your being there, it is forward and inappropriate to try to make them notice you, even if it’s just with a casual “Hello”.
