You’ve equivocated speaking to women and harassment. That’s nonsensical.
Some women will be claimed to be harmed by many actions, male proximity for example. Does this mean you will shelter yourself away from all women? Your posting on this message board probably causes some type of perceived harm to some women. Will you stop posting? What a truly silly way to live life.
I have answered them. That’s the whole point. You are rehashing matters that have been settled.
You say you are trying to reduce harm. So, how would you handle the situation in post #348?
So many people are having a problem understanding that. You’re absolutely right. Being cordial and polite is never out of line, and a polite "hello"is totally appropriate.
Only someone who is extremely provincial and unsophisticated woud think this. Different places have different rules of etiquette. Right or wrong, it is a reality. You risk all sorts of unpleasantness by assuming your “polite” is the same as someone else.
The OP must be the biggest piece of shit ever.
Yes, I’m sure the mental wards are full of people who couldn’t handle a polite “hello” in passing. Of course, those people probably had plethora of unresolved mental issues to start with.
I said nothing about mental wards, dude.
When people talk about social skills, they aren’t merely talking about knowing how to be cordial and polite. Being a “social” person means also knowing when your signs of friendliness are appropriate.
Saying “I’m gonna be friendly no matter how anyone feels about it” kind of defeats the point of friendliness–to make friends.
If you say hello to me on the street, I’ll get annoyed.
But according to these people, I’m wrong to get annoyed. I should have better manners than that.
So in effect, they’re both annoying me, and telling me I’m a bad person, and trying to teach me manners. And that’s the polite thing to do?
My Blue Heaven
15th Stock boy in a row: Have a nice day!
Vincent ‘Vinnie’ Antonelli: Fuck You!
How can you be sure?
The thing about this behavior is that it can be very isolating because no one else knows it’s happening. The guy who stood on the side of her for 5 minutes didn’t get anyone’s attention because the only person who knew it was happening was her*, and she couldn’t do anything about it. Anyone else who even noticed might have thought she knew this guy. Even some of the catcalls are things people hear all the time, but they assume they’re in the right context. If you heard someone yell out ‘Dayum!’, you might think they were celebrating something. Or if you heard someone say, "Hey, beautiful!', you might assume that the person saying that was talking to someone they were friends with. Those are commonplace things to hear so people might filter them out, thinking that they’re in the right context. The only reason you know that catcalls are happening is because you know from the context of the video that the words are not appropriate to the situation.
*it was later revealed that even the camera guy didn’t know it was happening until they saw the video
I’m glad to see that you differentiated the behavior in the video from this discussion, even if that point wasn’t made until page 8 or 9 when the initial point of your discussion started on page 2 with only a very slight change in context from the video where she was specifically not making eye contact to your hypothetical of someone making eye contact. Those are very different situations.
That said, even in your hypothetical, you noted that some women you knew didn’t mind while others have pointed out that some women might feel harassed.
In your hypothetical of saying ‘hi’ to women who make eye contact with you, what’s the social benefit to women who have a range of emotion from not minding to feeling harassed?
You’ve mentioned that you do it because it’s the social norm. The whole idea of the video is to question the social norms about catcalling. Since you’re doing that with your hypothetical, I’m interested in how you think the social benefit in your hypothetical outweighs the potential harm it may cause.
Sgt. Ernie Savage: Good morning, Sergeant Major.
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: How do you know what kind of goddamn day it is?
Sergeant Ernie Savage: Beautiful morning, Sergeant!
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: What are you a fucking weatherman now?
We Were Soldiers (2002)
The potential for harm seems tenuous at best.
The social benefit is that the potential for harm seems tenuous to you?
If you can’t express a social benefit, why continue to do a behavior where the potential for harm exists at all?
I bought some candy for Halloween, but then I got invited to a party at the last minute. Since i wasn’t going to be home, and I didn’t want to waste the candy, I drove around this afternoon offering kids the candy. A lot of people apparently got upset. WTF? :rolleyes:
Oh, and Kimstu, before you respond to me with your lame-o “under the roof” lecture, just note that my minivan has a roof.
Someone held the door open for me when I was going to the store.
RAPE CULTURE! #yesallwomen
Well, look, I’ve studied a lot about anthropology and evolution. I watched the movie “10,000 BC” in the theaters, and I often have the TV tuned to the National Geographic Channel in the background while I’m doing something. And the fact of the matter is that we evolved to be a social, cooperative species, so it’s in our nature to do favors for each other. So, I don’t see why people would get upset about my trying to give their kids candy.
Furthermore, I checked with my niece, who is female. And she may be only three, but she’s definitely a smart one. And she happily took the candy from me. So, even the women I know think it’s okay for me to drive around and offer kids candy.
Where’s the damn ‘like’ button?
I saw this thread come up a couple days ago and it had a few replies. I read the OP. Right, trolling douche-bag does what trolling douche-bags do. I already know where this thread is going, off to read something else.
Yesterday, I see it’s up to eight pages. I click “last page”. You’re now debating whether it’s okay to say hi to someone, or nod. That’s the actual honest-to-God, debate, that’s actually happening. Amazing. You’ve really outdone yourself this time, SDMB.
Thank you. You get what I’m saying.
Why are people worrying about free candy when children are starving to death? I’ve seen those Sally Struther commercials on television, so I have some expertise in this area. Let’s put this in perspective. More children starve to death everyday than died in all World War I’s combined. And people are worried about free candy??
If people really cared about children, then they would actually do something about the starving ones. I often like posts by people on Facebook and other social media sites to show that I’m against children starving to death. And just last week, I honked my horn when I drove by some people on the sidewalk holding signs. I’m not sure that the signs were about starving children, but it’s possible they were.
How many people take time out of their day to do those things? No, instead they worry about children getting free candy of all things. :rolleyes: