Degrees of Misogyny

[Bells]

Not for the first time your knee jerk reaction and stereotypical character judgement have corrupted your perception. This is unfortunate as it detracts from those many posts where you exercise good sense and objectivity.

I say the exact same thing about you, Ophiolite.

Hmm... That might be part of it. I think it's just a natural reaction for men to recognize beautiful women. Most do it silently, for sure.

Okay.. So why can't they do it silently all the time?

Why do you think it is acceptable for men to accost women, complete strangers, often on the street, to give their opinion on how that woman looks? Without invitation..

He didn't growl at her and bare his teeth. It was his way of telling her that she was beautiful. He made no sexually charged remarks in any form or manner.

And?

Why did he need to tell her that she was beautiful? Why do you believe she needed to hear it from him, a complete stranger?

If a guy walked to my wife and told her she is beautiful, I would agree. If he were to make sexually loaded remarks, yep, I would be upset. I think there is a line between the two. Again, letting someone know they are attractive isn't an insult or an overly aggressive act; however, I agree that sexually charged comments are rather creepy. Even worse are those who follow a woman in a stalking manner.

The thing is, a guy won't go up to your wife and tell her she's beautiful when you are with her. There is a reason why men target women who are either alone, or with other women. Do you know why? Think ownership culture. They won't intrude on another man's 'turf', if you will. If another man is there, they will stay silent out of respect for the other man. If the woman is alone or with other women, he won't respect her and will tell her what he thinks or how she makes him feel by how she walks, talks, looks, etc.

Do you understand now why this is wrong?

Well, if I were walking down the street and some guy yelled I think I'm in love, I would probably look around to see who she was. Now, if some guy were to stop me in the street and do the same, I would probably smile at the guy's poor taste in men.

But a guy won't do that to you. And knowing how homophobic you are, I doubt you'd smile.

If I were a young single man, and I saw an attractive woman who caught my eye, why wouldn't I say something? Of course I wouldn't assault her with sexual innuendos, but I would be a fool not to at least show some interest if that were truly the case.

Again, why do you think it is important for her to hear your opinion of her or how she looks without invitation?

See, you keep going on about how it is important for the man to share his feelings to a woman who is a complete stranger, but you are yet to acknowledge or explain why you feel a woman should be made to listen to it or why she should care. Your argument focuses solely on how the man feels. You repeatedly and completely ignore the woman's feelings in the matter and you keep assuming that she needs to hear that she is beautiful from a complete stranger on the street, or that she should smile more, etc.

To put it bluntly, why do you think your feelings and your opinions, about a a woman who is a complete stranger to you, going about her day, matter more than the woman's right to walk down the street without being accosted or harassed?

But that's how human sexuality works in many ways. It not just sexual appearance, but that can provide the initiative to try finding a deeper interaction. I think it's okay to approach someone. If they don't show any interest, let them be.

So you think it is acceptable and okay for you to interrupt and interfere with a person, because you think they should know that their "sexual appearance" pleases you, for example?

Do you understand how behaving that way is creepy to the woman?

But what's wrong in telling someone they have a beautiful smile?

Why do you think they need to hear it from you or any other complete stranger? You interrupt her thoughts, her stride, her movement and freedom, to tell her she has a beautiful smile or tell her to smile so she looks beautiful for you?

And you can't figure out what's wrong with that?

You can't figure out how that is downright creepy? How it would be construed as harassment? Who are you again? And why should your opinion or views of her smile matter so much to you that you feel the need to accost her to share your opinion of her?

The work environment is an artificial environment. It's a controlled environment that, by law, dictates the limits of male and female interaction. Again, if I were young and single, and I truly had an interest in a woman at work, I would be a fool not show it. Certainly it would be restrained by propriety, yet it can be done.

But you don't think such propriety should exist outside of work?

Bells, catcalls with overly sexual content are gross. I think we both agree on that point. But if you find someone attractive, letting them know isn't the worst thing you could be doing. Some time ago several women commented on my appearance in a flattering manner. Now, at my age that happens, like, never. So I appreciated the kind words. I suppose it might be different for women than for men, but if someone were to tell me I am beautiful, I would give them a smile in response. It's certainly better than being told you are fat and ugly.

Or perhaps you should just keep your opinion to yourself and go about your day and let her go about her day. You know, respect her space and her thoughts and, well, shut the hell up..

Because that is what it comes down to. Respect. And until you can understand that she deserves and has the right to walk freely without having strange men accost her to give her their views of how she looks, etc, then it is clear that men who do this are unable to respect her as a person and they believe that she should somehow do something to please them or to make them happy because they demand it of her in some way, shape or form.

It's about respect, Bowser and catcalling shows a complete lack of respect to the victim of said catcalling.

 

[Tiassa]

(This Post Has No Title)

Click for utter distraction​

Why do you think it is acceptable for men to accost women, complete strangers, often on the street, to give their opinion on how that woman looks? Without invitation..

It seems to me that, while someone else said it, we have earlier in this thread some manner of dispute about whether or not a woman has the right to leave her home without being sexually harassed. In the context of your question to Bowser ....

Hope Racine↱ via Huffington Post, in April:

I don’t know when reading a book in public became a signal that we’re desperate for attention and conversation. But nine times out of 10, it’s the exact opposite. As creepy as it is to hit on someone much younger than you, interrupting someone — of any gender — while they are out reading is rude, selfish, and abhorrent behavior.

By doing this, you are operating under two false assumptions: that the person isn’t doing anything important, and that your desire to talk is more important than their desire to read.

If someone is out reading in public, it means that they specifically carved this chunk of time out of their day to dedicate to a book. It could likely be the only part of their day where they are able to sit quietly and do something that is entirely for them. Even if someone is reading on the Metro home from work, it is a decision — they could stare out the window if they wanted to. But they didn’t.

The worst part is that almost every time I’ve been approached in public while reading, the person uses my book as a conversation starter. They’ve clearly noticed that I am preoccupied, and have chosen to ignore it. They’ve made the conscious decision that their desire for conversation and entertainment is more important.

I’m sorry, but your failure to bring anything to entertain yourself is not my fault. Interrupting someone who is reading — especially a stranger — is clearly prioritizing yourself. It’s as rude as interrupting someone who’s on the phone, or engrossed in a conversation. I won’t waste my breath here wondering why I’ve only ever been interrupted by older, white men who don’t take hints (and only when I’m alone). But I will leave you with one parting piece of advice: If her eyes are down and her book is up, shut your goddamn mouth and leave her alone.​

Or Prachi Gupta↱, for Cosmopolitan in June:

"God, is that girl reading at the bar? Who the fuck reads at a bar!"

I was drinking a beer and reading at the back of a dive bar when some Dudebro went off, as if I had just thrown a wrench in the space-time continuum and irrevocably altered the natural order of the universe. After a few more seconds of his ranting, I asked him why my quiet reading bothered him so much. "You're just reading so some guy will hit on you. Admit it!" Then Dudebro demanded to know what book I was reading (a Jonathan Franzen novel, which was just too perfect) and went in for the backhanded compliment: "You probably don't need a book to get guys to talk to you anyway."

The idea that women read at bars or anywhere to beguile men with their feminine charms or manipulate them into conversation is insulting and dehumanizing. Reading is not performative. I'm not taking my one-woman show, A Vagina Reading a Book!, on the road. Nor am I flipping pages to give you boners. When a man is seen reading a book, he is seen as doing just that — reading a book. No ulterior motive. People do not assume he's reading to court attention or show off his intellect, as they do with women. Just as our short skirts or high heels and curvy bodies are too often seen as "asking" for unwanted advances by men, so too is the simple act of reading.​

And I'm going to be very, very selfish for a moment.

Imagine we're stuck on an airplane. The bell sounds and the announcement tells us to prepare for landing. Like many passengers, as she stuffs her book away―the book she's been reading the whole time―she also gives a little shrug and sigh, as if to silently remind the world, "Okay, so we're landing. Can we please be about it so I can get off this fucking plane?"

You know. She's a traveler.

Story is what I do; it's one of my ways of connecting with people.

And it just seems that I ought to be able to ask her if it's a good book without tripping Goddess knows how many alarms.

And here I need to mansplain to my brothers:

I'm not pissed off at her that I can't.

Doesn't mean I'm not pissed off about it, though.

It seems self-evident to me that if I am willing to assert a concept like human rights, I owe her this basic respect as a human being.​

(This is also an underlying insecurity that contributes to masculine homophobia; if you're a dude who looks at chatting about the book someone is reading as an inroad to flirtation, suit, or sexual romance, it helps to know you're not accidentally flirting with another man.)​

But it also seems self-evident to me that one need not reach to abstraction in order to oblige respect unto our sisters. Rather, this is pretty straightforward and practical: Gentlemen: On such occasions that you might be seen reading in public, how often is that act intended as a signal that you want a man to try to get your permission to stick his erect penis inside your body? I would further remind that there comes a point at which the affirmative means you're likely not going to be hitting on women. Bisexual is one thing, but it's not going to work at Starbuck's, it's not going to work at the pub, generally speaking; and the places where it might work (A) you won't be hitting on women, and (B) it might still not work because in the gay male community, "too desperate" is sometimes interpreted as "lethally dangerous".

That is to say, among the men who most need to consider these questions, it seems rare are the days you'll grant another man who might be thinking of how good your lips will look with his sex jammed between them the same manner of intrusion and disruption of your reading time so many would otherwise oblige of women.​

Yeah, I know, I know: Excuse me, madam, but I need to interrupt my own intrusion on your discourse to have an important chat with the boys.

Can I just plead that the irony sometimes seems like it should be somehow effective toward other ends?

I don't know; I keep telling my brothers that our sisters are, indeed, telling us what the problem is. I don't really have any good ideas at the moment regarding what to do about the fact that so many of us just won't fucking listen.

I sometimes make grim jokes like Lysistrata, which, in addition to being a doomed prospect, really is unfair; it only works if we presume lesbianism can satisfy every woman, and we already know that isn't true. And it's really, really obliging, anyway. The impossibility is what makes the proposition of a Lysistrata revolution remotely useful rhetoric today: If we really need things to go that far in order to address the problem, what the hell is wrong with us?

And there is another, even more grim: Should women really have to strap on their Second Amendment and stand their ground against basic harassment? What's going to happen the first time she shoots a guy for dropping a skeezy line while she's reading at an outdoor table during happy hour? Because you and I know that under Infinite Prevention Advocacy, she not only has the right, but to some degree a particular duty to put a sick dog down before he harms anyone else in the community. That is, not only does she have the right to Stand Her Ground, she also has a reason that is larger than (ahem!) simply the immediate threat presenting itself.

And again: Why should it ever go so far? What the hell is wrong with us if that's what needs to happen?

Because I'm entirely uncertain what the latest iterations of, Everything is fine, ladies, as long as you just remember that you exist for our benefit, are expected to accomplish. Not just at Sciforums, but in a generational context.

I don't know, maybe it's the idea that if I keep laying it out over and over again, I'll eventually figure out what I'm missing, because it seems there ought to be some communicative device that can penetrate the noise and actually establish contact.

But I have no idea what that is.
____________________

Notes:

Gupta, Prachi. "Men: Women Aren't Reading to Get Your Attention". Cosmopolitan. 6 June 2016. Cosmopolitan.com. 24 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2ao6Ivi

Racine, Hope. "Reading in Public Is Not an Invitation for Conversation". The Huffingotn Post. 15 April 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 24 April 2016. http://bit.ly/2a6Sa42

 

[Bells]

Ah one of my pet peeves.

I have lost count how many times I have had a guy try to chat me up on a train, plane, bus or even outside a court house where I would sometimes go to get some fresh air and read up on case notes, for example.. Or when they try and chat me up when I am working or writing down some notes about a speech or lecture.. And then they get offended and quite rude, when they see me having to physically tear my eyes away from what I am doing to turn to look at them, still trying to process my thoughts.. Because apparently my being obviously busy is an open invitation for strangers to approach me to ask me if what I'm reading is a good book, or (and this is even worse) "what can that book be possibly telling you that has you so 'into it' that you can't see me smiling at you?" or to tell me how "pretty" I look when I am concentrating or focusing so intently on what I am reading..

It's worse on a plane, when after the polite and obligatory smile at your seatmate, one normally reads, naps, or does something to occupy one's time, and one's seatmate waits until they see you are busy to try to chat you up and you are forced to sit there, for however long the flight lasts, without any recourse of moving, afraid to create a scene if you politely tell him that you are busy, for example and I've had guys lose their proverbial shit at me for doing so and being afraid that well, since it's on a plane, telling a guy 'thanks, but I'm not interested' or 'thanks, but I really am right in the middle of something important' could result in a scene in an enclosed space with no way out.

And the telling someone to smile. I remember reading, a long while ago, a woman who was involved or worked in the field where she was on hand to help grieving families of dying children. I can't remember if she was a hospice nurse or grief counselor, but it was in that field. And she was recounting how she would be walking down the street, pretty down and sad about what had just transpired in her work and sometimes grieving, and men would walk up to her and tell her she should smile because she would be prettier if she smiled. And I remembered how sometimes, I'd be catching the train home, feeling pretty shit about a particular case involving awful harm to children and trying to focus my thoughts and get past the horrors perpetrated against a child and simply mentally try and plot a course forward, and some random guy would sidle up to me and tell me how pretty I'd be if I just smiled for him and being called a "bitch" for turning away or moving away from him. Being called a bitch loudly so everyone else can hear and they all turn to look at me, wandering what I had just done to incur such an accusation or word, like it's my fault.

When I see people like Bowser suggesting that he or other men should have every right to intrude on another person in that way, even just to tell them they are pretty or to smile, or whatever, it's just astonishing because it is so selfish. They completely ignore that this is an uninvited intrusion on another person. Would they force their way into a stranger's home to tell them it was a lovely looking home? No. But they feel it is acceptable to accost a perfect stranger to tell them they look pretty, are attractive, to smile, to share their opinion on her looks because they think their opinion is more valid than her right to not be harassed in any way, shape or form by them?

And don't even get me started on the men who spew "not all men" or who rant about rape prevention ideology, but they are the same men who demand that they should have every right to sexually harass a woman on the street or elsewhere, to objectify her by way of her looks, while ignoring the fact that they are the same people who believe that women should avoid such men because of "rape prevention ideology"..

 

[mtf]

Ah, some statements of a spiritually superior man:

Purport SB 4.25.41

Prabhupada: In this regard, the word vikhyatam is very significant. A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape.
Purport SB 4.25.42
Prabhupada: When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. A woman is generally very much attracted by a man’s long arms. A serpent’s body is round, and it becomes narrower and thinner at the end. The beautiful arms of a man appear to a woman just like serpents, and she very much desires to be embraced by such arms.
The word anatha-varga is very significant in this verse. Natha means “husband,” and a means “without.” A young woman who has no husband is called anatha, meaning “one who is not protected.” As soon as a woman attains the age of puberty, she immediately becomes very much agitated by sexual desire. It is therefore the duty of the father to get his daughter married before she attains puberty. Otherwise she will be very much mortified by not having a husband. Anyone who satisfies her desire for sex at that age becomes a great object of satisfaction. It is a psychological fact that when a woman at the age of puberty meets a man and the man satisfies her sexually, she will love that man for the rest of her life, regardless who he is. Thus so-called love within this material world is nothing but sexual satisfaction.

http://secretsoftheharekrishnasexposed.blogspot.si/2011/09/his-views-promoting-idea-that-women.html

-“…woman has no independence, because they cannot keep their independence---it is not possible.”
-“By nature they are weak…”
-“In the Western countries, the women are given freedom like man, but that is unnatural.”
-“So, woman—the conclusion is that women are weak.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 11/30/73)

-“Independence for women means they become like prostitutes.”
-“Women cannot do anything independently. To give them independence means to create some trouble.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 5/19/72)

-“Women are inferior to men, and… men are given full charge of the women.”
-“Women are supposed to be less intelligent.”
(TLK 5)

-“Women should not be given freedom. Like a child, she is not given freedom.”
(SB Lecture, Los Angeles, 7/11/74)

-“It is found that the brain substance in man is found up to 64 ounce. They are very highly intellectual persons. And in woman the brain substance is not found more than 34 ounce. You’ll find, therefore, that there is no very great scientist, mathematician, philosopher, among women. You’ll never find because their brain substance cannot go.”
(BG lecture, Hawaii, 2/3/75)

-“Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man.”
(SB 1.7.42, purport)

-“According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy.”
-“As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation.”
(BG 1.40, purport)

-“Now, in the ‘Manu-samhita’ it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men.”
(BG 16.7, purport)

-“Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man.”
(SB 1.7.42, purport)

-“A woman’s attachment to her husband may elevate her to the body of a man in her next life, but a man’s attachment to woman will degrade him, and in his next life he will get the body of a woman.”
(SB 3.31.41, purport)

-“It is understood that the sexual appetite of a woman is nine times greater than that of a man.”
(SB 3.23.44, purport)
/.../
https://sites.google.com/a/iskconme...please-stop-misusing-srila-prabhupadas-quotes

And the essay with plety of quotes here: https://prabhupadawomen.wordpress.com/


And so on and ever on ...
It's bizarrely interesting how this man was able to formulate his claims so ... eloquently, how one man was able to collect so much misogyny.

 

[mtf]

Okay.. So why can't they do it silently all the time?/.../
Again, why do you think it is important for her to hear your opinion of her or how she looks without invitation?/.../
To put it bluntly, why do you think your feelings and your opinions, about a a woman who is a complete stranger to you, going about her day, matter more than the woman's right to walk down the street without being accosted or harassed?

Humans are a competitive species and they do a number of things to those they compete with, depending on the competitor's goals and circumstances.
Misogyny is a tool in such competition, used both by men and women alike. Other such tools are racism, ageism, classism, etc. etc.

Or perhaps you should just keep your opinion to yourself and go about your day and let her go about her day. You know, respect her space and her thoughts and, well, shut the hell up..

Should people not compete?
If catcalling gets to you, if it throws you off your game, it means it is an effective strategy for winning the competition against you (the competition can be about anything from getting the job that is currently yours to getting your attention).

 

[Bells]

Humans are a competitive species and they do a number of things to those they compete with, depending on the competitor's goals and circumstances.
Misogyny is a tool in such competition, used both by men and women alike. Other such tools are racism, ageism, classism, etc. etc.

He would only be competing with himself? Or with other men?

Should people not compete?

As though women are property to be fought over?

If catcalling gets to you, if it throws you off your game, it means it is an effective strategy for winning the competition against you (the competition can be about anything from getting the job that is currently yours to getting your attention).

Are you suggesting that sexual harassment is a useful tool for men to compete with each other and with women?

Judging by what you have quoted from who you deemed to be a "spiritually superior man", is that your view of women, I wonder?

 

[mtf]

He would only be competing with himself? Or with other men?

That is up to him whom he views as his competitors and what it is that he is competing for.
Not rarely, people compete for self-respect, believing that the only way they can have it is if they put others down.

As though women are property to be fought over?

You're competing right now.

Are you suggesting that sexual harassment is a useful tool for men to compete with each other and with women?

I'm sure you've already made up your mind about that.

Judging by what you have quoted from who you deemed to be a "spiritually superior man", is that your view of women, I wonder?

You are sarcasm impaired, aren't ya ...

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

That is up to him whom he views as his competitors and what it is that he is competing for.
Not rarely, people compete for self-respect, believing that the only way they can have it is if they put others down.

But he does not believe he is putting her down. Look at Bowser's posts as a prime example.

You're competing right now.

With whom and for what, exactly?

I'm sure you've already made up your mind about that.

You don't know me, do you, mtf?

I fail to see how you can make any such claim about a complete stranger you have never spoken to or engaged with, wouldn't you agree, mtf?

You are sarcasm impaired, aren't ya ...

:shrug:

When the delivery is so bad, it is hard to judge, to be honest.

 

[mtf]

But he does not believe he is putting her down. Look at Bowser's posts as a prime example.

Well, then it could be something else he wants, some resource that he believes she has and he lacks. That resource can be material or psychological.

With whom and for what, exactly?

Looks like you're in this for respect, supremacy, with everyone.
You keep talking about how many men are not being respectful enough toward women, so it appears this is what you're after.

I fail to see how you can make any such claim about a complete stranger you have never spoken to or engaged with, wouldn't you agree, mtf?

LOL. I read your posts, I know your MO.

When the delivery is so bad, it is hard to judge, to be honest.

Fer shure. Always blame others. Works like a charm!

 

[mtf]

Bottomline, competition between humans exists, on many levels, in many modes. It's not clear whether it is possible to get past that or to compete in a manner that actually is respectful for all involved.

 

[Bells]

Well, then it could be something else he wants, some resource that he believes she has and he lacks. That resource can be material or psychological.

And what boo boo wants, boo boo must have?

Looks like you're in this for respect, supremacy, with everyone.

Should I point out the contradiction in that statement, or are you able to figure it out for yourself?

You keep talking about how many men are not being respectful enough toward women, so it appears this is what you're after.

Considering how you have contradicted yourself, I fail to know what it is you believe I am after.

LOL. I read your posts, I know your MO.

Why would you want to?

See, I adore when people run with that excuse.

Fer shure. Always blame others. Works like a charm!

Just as I adore it when masks slip.

Bottomline, competition between humans exists, on many levels, in many modes. It's not clear whether it is possible to get past that or to compete in a manner that actually is respectful for all involved.

How about people who feel the need to sexually harass women for whatever excuse you wish to come up with, simply shut up?

 

[mtf]

How about people who feel the need to sexually harass women for whatever excuse you wish to come up with, simply shut up?

Looks like your moderator powers aren't a sufficient tool for that.

 

[Bells]

Looks like your moderator powers aren't a sufficient tool for that.

But pointy heels are.

 

[mtf]

There you go.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― An obvious point

How about people who feel the need to sexually harass women for whatever excuse you wish to come up with, simply shut up?

Something about freedom, something about a summer's eve.

It occurs to mind that perhaps I ought to borrow the moment for sake of an opportunity to sketch a basic policy clarification:

→ Some are well enough aware, and for the rest I might as well make the point, that it seems rather quite disdainful to those expected to repeat themselves over and over again because someone watches others lose an argument and decides to give it another go on the basis that maybe one more reiteration of what doesn't work―or, really, make any practical sense―might somehow be convincing. In a way, it's like they line up in order to take turns wasting people's time, because at least then it's all wasted and little actual progress occurs. That, however, would suggest they understand what they are doing, and, really, such presumptions in the face of any real evidence―disbelief, or, rather, the belief that one cannot possibly be that stupid constitutes exactly no manner of appropriate proof of anything―are unsafe.​

↳ Thus: If you wish to advocate dangerous and stupid outcomes, then it is expected that you have some reasonable clue what you're on about.​

I shouldn't have to remind people.

No, really, this one is pretty straightforward.

That a person might reasonably and responsibly advocate dangerous and irresponsible outcomes is a proposition so fraught with risk of failure as to generally preclude the attempt. Think of it this way: If it sounds remotely like anything anyone has heard before, then it probably doesn't work.

In my over four decades living in this society, constant repetition of advocacy for harmful behavior has utterly failed to remove the harm from the behavior. Something about the definition of insanity goes here.

The advice is sound: Simply shutting up reflects wisdom; repeating the ritual mistakes of the past just makes you a dumbassed cultist.

 

[Bowser]

Okay.. So why can't they do it silently all the time?

Why should if they see a woman who takes their fancy?

Why do you think it is acceptable for men to accost women, complete strangers, often on the street, to give their opinion on how that woman looks? Without invitation..

Honestly? I do. Yes, men will speak their minds. Again, being told you are beautiful is not a terrible thing.

Why did he need to tell her that she was beautiful? Why do you believe she needed to hear it from him, a complete stranger?

Because he was taken by her beauty, of course.

The thing is, a guy won't go up to your wife and tell her she's beautiful when you are with her. There is a reason why men target women who are either alone, or with other women. Do you know why? Think ownership culture. They won't intrude on another man's 'turf', if you will. If another man is there, they will stay silent out of respect for the other man. If the woman is alone or with other women, he won't respect her and will tell her what he thinks or how she makes him feel by how she walks, talks, looks, etc.

I agree with you here. Most men wouldn't approach a women who is with a man. True. You are absolutely correct.

Do you understand now why this is wrong?

Giving someone a compliment is wrong?

But a guy won't do that to you. And knowing how homophobic you are, I doubt you'd smile.

Yes, I would, simply because of his poor judgement and lack of taste. His gaydar would be totally out of alignment if he chose to hit on me.

Again, why do you think it is important for her to hear your opinion of her or how she looks without invitation?

Do you ask for permission before giving someone a compliment? I mean, is that how screwed up we've become?

See, you keep going on about how it is important for the man to share his feelings to a woman who is a complete stranger, but you are yet to acknowledge or explain why you feel a woman should be made to listen to it or why she should care. Your argument focuses solely on how the man feels. You repeatedly and completely ignore the woman's feelings in the matter and you keep assuming that she needs to hear that she is beautiful from a complete stranger on the street, or that she should smile more, etc.

Again, I'm trying to understand how a compliment brings a person down. I can understand how vulgar comments are disturbing, but being told you are beautiful should be a high point in your day.

To put it bluntly, why do you think your feelings and your opinions, about a a woman who is a complete stranger to you, going about her day, matter more than the woman's right to walk down the street without being accosted or harassed?

I don't see a compliment equaling harassment.

So you think it is acceptable and okay for you to interrupt and interfere with a person, because you think they should know that their "sexual appearance" pleases you, for example?

If I were young and single, if I saw a woman who knocked my socks off, yeah, I would let her know.

Do you understand how behaving that way is creepy to the woman?

So, do you take offense anytime someone gives you a compliment, or is it just strange men on the street that scare you?

Why do you think they need to hear it from you or any other complete stranger? You interrupt her thoughts, her stride, her movement and freedom, to tell her she has a beautiful smile or tell her to smile so she looks beautiful for you?

I wouldn't ask her to perform for me.

And you can't figure out what's wrong with that?

If I was in the position where I saw a beautiful woman, someone who attracted my attention, and I were a young single man, if I really wanted to get to know her, I might try opening a dialogue with a compliment, risking rejection on the gamble that she might respond in kind.

You can't figure out how that is downright creepy? How it would be construed as harassment? Who are you again? And why should your opinion or views of her smile matter so much to you that you feel the need to accost her to share your opinion of her?

Guys are usually the ones who do the chasing. It's unfortunate that many women are in a constant state of fear, which I attribute to past negative experiences. I do understand, you fear men.

But you don't think such propriety should exist outside of work?

The workplace is a controlled environment. If you believe it's a normal condition for people to spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, locked in the confines of a building, doing menial tasks, then your world is different than mine.

Or perhaps you should just keep your opinion to yourself and go about your day and let her go about her day. You know, respect her space and her thoughts and, well, shut the hell up..

My days as a young man are long gone, so I have no need to approach beautiful women, but I still appreciate them.

Because that is what it comes down to. Respect. And until you can understand that she deserves and has the right to walk freely without having strange men accost her to give her their views of how she looks, etc, then it is clear that men who do this are unable to respect her as a person and they believe that she should somehow do something to please them or to make them happy because they demand it of her in some way, shape or form.

Telling someone they are beautiful is not disrespect, it's a compliment. If a man can get past a woman's general paranoia, he might stand a chance of getting to know her. Certainly catcalling will never break the ice. I agree on that premise.

It's about respect, Bowser and catcalling shows a complete lack of respect to the victim of said catcalling.

I think what you're asking for is respect for a woman's fear of men. I'm sorry for that. Again, if you never try, you will never know. Not all women think alike, Bells.

 

[mtf]

Telling someone they are beautiful is not disrespect, it's a compliment.

Of course, some people never get compliments.
There are women who never get any compliments from men, or at least not compliments of a romantic or sexual nature. So the problem Bells is talking about is far from being universal for all women.

When I see people like Bowser suggesting that he or other men should have every right to intrude on another person in that way, even just to tell them they are pretty or to smile, or whatever, it's just astonishing because it is so selfish. They completely ignore that this is an uninvited intrusion on another person.

Except that it is only an "intrusion" as long as it is by a man that the particular woman doesn't like, right?

 

[Bowser]

Of course, some people never get compliments.
There are women who never get any compliments from men, or at least not compliments of a romantic or sexual nature. So the problem Bells is talking about is far from being universal for all women.

Beauty was never my curse, though I had been told I was cute.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Why should if they see a woman who takes their fancy?

What ... gives ... him ... the ... right?

• • •​

Of course, some people never get compliments.
There are women who never get any compliments from men, or at least not compliments of a romantic or sexual nature. So the problem Bells is talking about is far from being universal for all women.

‡​

Except that it is only an "intrusion" as long as it is by a man that the particular woman doesn't like, right?

You say that like it means something.

 

[iceaura]

Why should if they see a woman who takes their fancy?

Because it's abusive to afflict strangers with one's every passing thought, and demand others attend to them, uninvited. They have their own thoughts, and are minding their own business - do likewise.