ISTM that many people - on either side of the issue - are creating a false dichotomy, in which either the guys are actively hoping to have sex with the women they address in the street, or are acting in a completely gender-neutral manner.
Truth is that a lot of people enjoy interaction with members of the opposite sex, especially young and attractive ones. Much like flirting that you don’t intend to lead anywhere (in this particular respect).
So a lot of the guys who address attractive women on the street don’t think the anything further is going to develop and don’t intend to attempt it, but the brief exchange itself - if one develops - is the end to itself. Obviously a very minescule end, but considering that the amount of effort expended is even more minescule, it’s worth it for a lot of guys.
The same might apply to cat-calls (although there I imagine it’s probably more about impressing the other guys than interacting with the women. Perhaps some women can comment about the relative prevalence of cat-calls from solitary individuals versus guys who are part of groups).
Returning to an earlier issue, I wonder if part of the difference between my wife’s experience with black guys and that of Monstro has to do with monstro herself being black. What I’m wondering is if a lot of black guys think a white woman is more likely to freak out and call cops if they feel threatened by a black guy cat-calling them than a black woman would. And again, since this is really just a mindless no-effort no-big-deal pastime to begin with, it’s just not worth the potential hassle.
Frankly, I think you’re both arguing past each other to score points. But I don’t think your position is that unreasonable as long as you understand the men on that video were obnoxious.
Either scenario you presented does not insist or impose upon another person some obligation. An expectation, if it exists at all, is not an imposition of an obligation, nor is it insistent on one. You can expect anything you desire - this does not translate into an obligation for another to fulfill it. You can interact with another person without the insistence that they do so in kind.
Like I said earlier, elevating simple human interaction into something more nefarious dilutes the magnitude of real issues. For example, I assume we all agree things like assault and rape are bad. If one were to take it further and say, looking at someone without their approval is like visually raping them, that’s where you go into crazy town.
In this current thread, equating an effort to meet strangers by common greeting to attempting to dominate them, harass them, or some other inappropriate behavior is not just silly, but counter productive.
Yes, I wondered what that meant too, until it happened to me enough times. I can best describe it as a sort of slightly leering stare, where the man’s eyes are focused on your breasts, your legs, your middle, moving up and down your body. It’s a focus on the body which roams around you, ignoring your face. You get this “spidey sense” that you are being imagined without clothes.
Bricker and I disagree about the following statement:
“Nodding, smiling and waving at strangers imposes an obligation on them.”
We’re both interested in whether that statement is true or false, and our opinions on it are contrary to each others’. This isn’t arguing past each other, it’s a substantive disagreement on an admittedly small point. I’m not scoring points, its something I’m actually interested in knowing the truth about. I’m not a point-scorer. When I argue it’s because I’m concerned about what I’m arguing about.
Wear a sandwich board sign with words to the effect of Don’t Say ‘Hello’ To Me! and I won’t - I’ll point & laugh but I won’t say Hello.
But suppose I think I might know you or went to school with you or you’re the spouse of a friend of I met at Jim’s (or was it Tom’s? Alice’s?) party las year and don’t want to be rude by not saying Hello as we pass?
Oh well, it’ll pass, like you.
You keep saying that as if it matters. But then I shouldn’t be surprised, you feel you’re entitled to do something to women that they don’t want, no surprise that you feel you can impose your will on the discussion to discuss only things you want
“It is possible to read the Court’s opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court’s decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
Replace “hard-core pornography” with “measurable volumes of street harassment”. But I think you know that already.
I believe your attempt to define what may be undefinable is an attempt to stall, obscure, and/or reject the notion that any significant amount of harassment happens so that you can feel good about doing nothing about the problem. I’ll put the question back to you then: how much harassment would you allow to happen before you feel its a problem that requires action, and what would you accept as data to prove an incident of such harassment?
I’m sure you didn’t mean to skip it, but I’ll repeat myself: My rule is default because I am trying to lessen harm. Men are not harmed by not speaking to women on the street. Some women are harmed, or come into harm later, by men harassing them. Therefore, to err on the side of least harm, you default to the women’s preferred behavior
I think people on both sides of the debate are missing (or not admitting) a couple things:
1- All of the “hellos” and “good afternoon’s” WERE NOT innocent or innocuous. They most definitely carry a sexual component. Quit trying to act like this is “just saying hello”.
2- A lot of guys don’t know any better, even if they should know better, even if they are being very intrusive. The solution is not to just let “guys be guys” but to make more videos and have more conversations like this. Specifically, if a guy says “hello” to a girl as she is walking by that does not make him a sexist asshole. Just clueless and immature.
No, I’m discussing the relevant topic. You’re just trying to raise irrelevant or matters that have already been concluded and agreed upon, because you can’t be bothered to read an entire thread. As such, I see very little point in attempting to have a discussion with you, seeing as you admit you don’t bother to read the entirety of the discussion. Instead, you just jump and try to shift the conversation, while claiming that others have done the same.
What’s your stance on the word “Oriental?” :rolleyes:
I think this is an important point. It’s really not (or anyway, in many cases, needn’t be) about showing how these guys are assholes or anything like that. Rather, it’s about educating people as to what the actual effect of this practice is–letting women tell people what is happening to them in these interactions.
I’d be perfectly happy, for example, if a person’s reaction is to think “geez they are being completely unfair to those guys, those guys were just saying hi etc,” yet subsequently to refrain from doing it himself because now he knows what he’s doing when he does it.
All you’re doing is dodging issues you can’t answer, which I’m not surprised about. As to your claim, I guess this is the one thread in the Pit where everybody finally agreed that there’s only one possible right outcome. Surprising, I thought it would have been the one about the 4’33.
