Street Harrassment.!!!

[James R]

(continued)

You just acknowledged the video has been edited.

Of course the video was edited! She spent 10 hours walking around NY. Do you think anybody is going to watch a 10 hour video to see one comment directed at her every 6 minutes (on average)?

And yes, not to the comments she received were included. Let's assume the behaviour shown was the worst of the worst, and that the other 70 comments (or whatever) were not as obviously harassing. If that were true, would there be nothing to worry about?

Actually, no I am not proud of my "progressive beliefs". Actually, I think of myself as a classical conservative or an independent. I like objectivity and science. I like reason over hyperbole or some slavish devotion to an ideology.

Except classical conservatism, objectivity and science, of course.

Oh, and you realise that you're not objective just because you're you, don't you? You have a subjective view just like the rest of us.

I don't like ideologues of either stripe. It just so happens "progressives" have become much more conservative in the last few decades and so called conservatives; well they have gone off the deep end and into the land of crazy.

Yes, crazy how those progressives think that women should be able to walk down the street without being harassed! What could they be thinking?

The fact is so called progressives are using this instance as a banner for their cause without knowing if it is truthful.

They know it's truthful. They know this happens. If you took two minutes of your time to do some research, you'd know too. Why would all those women lie?

What happens if in a few days, weeks or months it comes out this was all faked?

I guess all the progressives say "Mea culpa" and there's no harassment in the world after all. Right? 'cause it all hinges on this one video.

You know, Joe, the scientific method says you should look at all the evidence, not just the bits that suit your ideology.

Folks like you who accept this stuff without question are just asking to be set up for a fall.

"Folks like you" who just aren't as smart and savvy and logical as the classical conseratives, eh? Yeah, first against the wall when the revolution comes. Oh wait, classical conservatives don't want a revolution; they want business as usual, with them in control.

If you want to have a discussion about harassment, you don’t need this video and you don’t need the actress to have that discussion.

Oops. I nearly fell off my chair.

What follows from this, Joe? Anything?

This video stretches credulity for the reasons previously given. The irony here is that advocates against harassment engage in harassment to further their agenda.

Sorry? Is this a claim that the video itself constitutes harassment of somebody? Or is it a claim that you, Joe, have been harassed in this thread to further the "agenda" of nasty liberals like little old me?

The bottom line here is that harassment of any kind should not be condoned, be it sexual harassment or your run of the mill bullying that unfortunately goes on every day around the globe. We see it in Sciforums by so called “progressives” and by so called "conservatives". One would hope that at some point we would learn to treat each other with more civility and respect. But in the end we are all frail humans and subject to all the faults thereof. We are a work in progress or at least I hope we are.

How much respect have you shown to the unattractive, obviously struggling actress in the video? Not a lot, I'd say. Seems like there might be a double standard in play here.

So because some women have been harrased all women are honest and victims of harrasment. Ok...next@

Interesting. Very telling.

Do you think that women generally tell lies about harassment, Joe? Some of them, at least? Lots of them, perhaps? Do you think harassment is over-reported? Do you think that what is claimed as harassment often isn't really? What?

What's the message here? Women are not to be trusted when they say they've been harassed? That would tie in with your questioning of the video nicely, wouldn't it? Maybe we've hit on where you're really coming from.

Who knew the meet questioning the veracity of a video would arouse so much hate?

Who knew that the video itself would arouse such strident defences of harassment, combined with claims that it doesn't occur? Actually, I expected it would.

The point I made about the 4.5 million women is that if this was the problem this video represents it to be, the problem would have garnered much more attention long before this video unless it is your position that men suddenly became barbarians overnight. Maybe there is a barbarian virus going around.

Or it could be that you missed something. You never know if you never try to find out.

I never said sexual harassment didn't exist or hadn't been documented before this video tape...damn minor detail again. And frankly it isn't relevant to my point nor can it legitimately be construed as contradictory to anything I have written. As I have repeatedly said, if the harrasment in this tape were truely representative, one would expect it this to have garnered much more attention much earlier.

Indeed. Maybe your choice of media outlets is too restrictive. Consider.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy,

What is wrong is identified by laws.

For you, perhaps. I must say that I'm glad that you're law-abiding, even if you're incapable of moral progression beyond that. But I have to tell you that you have it ass-backwards, as they say. See, what actually happens is that the ideas of morals come first, then the laws and the law enforcement. Morals don't grow from laws; laws grow from morals. Well, actually it's a tad more complicated than that, but I don't want to confuse you even more.

The main point to try to get your brain around is that some things can be immoral even if they are legal. And - brace yourself here - some things can be moral even if they are illegal.

As a rule of thumb, you're probably safe enough most of the time to stick to obeying the laws if you aren't equipped to think about morality. It's fine. Not everybody is up to the task.

You claiming lollypop licking is wrong because you despise lollypops is BS!

That would be BS, but I haven't made that kind of claim. Street harassment is wrong because it is an imposition on the right of every individual to be treated with basic decency and respect. Whether I despise street harassment or not is a secondary matter. My primary concern is on a level above that of the specific issue under discussion here, but I don't really expect you to understand that. For you, morality seems to amount to "obey the set of rules written down in the law". For me, morality is derived from a complex set of abstract and concrete considerations that form a consistent framework for reasoning (at least I hope they do!).

Again, you think wrong is what you believe to be the case. If the law doesn't say it's wrong, then we don't get to call the Police because James thinks it's wrong. Nope, the cases in court are never backed by the belief of James, they are backed by real laws, in writing, not in James' head. See?

You're quite correct in saying that my personal moral ideals don't correspond one-to-one with any set of written laws. Therefore I can't call the police every time I think something is morally wrong. But the written laws that exist actually are backed by things in people's heads, or at least by things that were in people's heads when the laws were made.

What you need to realise is (I'm repeating myself) is that there isn't a law against everything that is morally wrong. Lots of wrongs happen in the world that are completely beyond the reach of law, sometimes deliberately so and sometimes through omission.

Are you aware that there are no Morals Police?

In a sense, we are all Morals Police. We just can't necessary drag people off to jail for every breach of morality.

So Americans have trouble with the concept of irony because they were born in America? Is that all of them born there?

The correlation is there. I'm not sure of the causation. Regarding the "all" part, I have already been quite clear about that. If you think further discussion is warranted, perhaps a new thread?

There is no law against eating Spinach, but I don't do that either.

Why don't you eat spinach? Because you just don't like the taste?

Then why don't you harass women on the street? Because you just don't like doing it? You don't want to? I'm really interested to know, now.

You, on the other hand hate Spinach so much that you want to see all people that eat Spinach be arrested.

No. Nor have I said that men who harass women on the street should be arrested (actually, nobody has actually asked me even whether I think any of them should be arrested).

The problem is, James, it's not wrong to eat Spinach unless the law says it's wrong to do that, and violators will be prosecuted. You don't seem to get that, unless you're playing dumb because the alternative is to lose ground in this debate?

I get it. You think that something can only be immoral if it is illegal. I'm telling you that's not a requirement. Sorry to strain your brain, but it's true.

 

[Motor Daddy]

James, Tell it to the Judge! See if he agrees with you! Tell him that you find it morally reprehensible and you want action!! See what he says! Get back with me on that, k?

Again, laws are written, and morals are thoughts. There are no thought Police, as much as you would like to see that take place. Sorry James, your thoughts are not mine, and we need laws so that people like you that think their morals are right are put in their place. You want action? Make a law and CALL THE POLICE!

 

[Trooper]

Do you have a point to make, or are you still just trying to impress all the men?

Is it easy being a man, Tiassa, is it?

The Hollaback video was marketed by a viral video marketing agency. Take a look at the other viral video also marketed by Rob Bliss Creative.

“There is a large and unbridgeable gap between the culturally authorized idea of 'hegemonic masculinity' and the reality of everyday survival for men in crisis.”

The gender differences in suicide rates are significant. "The incidence of completed suicide is vastly higher among males than females among all age groups in most of the world." Men are twice as likely as women to developed alcohol dependency. 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations.

http://www.robblisscreative.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

 

[Liebling]

James, Tell it to the Judge! See if he agrees with you! Tell him that you find it morally reprehensible and you want action!! See what he says! Get back with me on that, k?

Again, laws are written, and morals are thoughts. There are no thought Police, as much as you would like to see that take place. Sorry James, your thoughts are not mine, and we need laws so that people like you that think their morals are right are put in their place. You want action? Make a law and CALL THE POLICE!

You can't legislate all the things that people do that are immoral or you will have more politicians than citizens. Your proposal is actually absolutely ridiculous and a complete strawman.

If you make someone uncomfortable with unwelcome comments/actions, or make them feel like they are unsafe or threatened then you are a bully and you are creating an environment that is hostile for women. And you are harming the woman you are harrassing mentally with your behaviour. You don't need a law to tell you that's wrong. If you do, then you need a new moral compass because yours is horribly broken.

 

[James R]

James, Tell it to the Judge! See if he agrees with you! Tell him that you find it morally reprehensible and you want action!! See what he says! Get back with me on that, k?

If it's legal, it won't get to a judge.

Again, laws are written, and morals are thoughts. There are no thought Police, as much as you would like to see that take place. Sorry James, your thoughts are not mine, and we need laws so that people like you that think their morals are right are put in their place. You want action? Make a law and CALL THE POLICE!

If I want a law made, I'll have to modify people's thoughts first, won't I? How do you think laws get made?

 

[James R]

Liebling,

You don't need a law to tell you that's wrong. If you do, then you need a new moral compass because yours is horribly broken.

Motor Daddy would have us believe that he does need a law to know that something's wrong. He has no moral compass but the law, apparently.

Hell, he can't even tell me why he doesn't harass women on the street. I don't think he knows himself.

 

[Liebling]

Liebling,

Motor Daddy would have us believe that he does need a law to know that something's wrong. He has no moral compass but the law, apparently.

Hell, he can't even tell me why he doesn't harass women on the street. I don't think he knows himself.

There will always be people who stick to their story no matter what evidence you prevent to show them that they are wrong. Willful ignorance is a long standing tradition at sciforums. I am not sure it would be the same without it. Makes me miss Baron Max just a little (a really very minute bit, mind you.)

 

[Trooper]

Lying is morally wrong, too, but just imagine if the states tried to shield the citizens from lies. Every goddamn politician would be in jail. Hey…maybe that's not such a bad idea after all.

Don’t worry, James, I’d bake you cake with a file in it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You don't need a law to tell you that's wrong.

So the desired goal to stop this mess is to make sure people know it's wrong, like you do? That will stop it? Just need to educate people on proper morals? Whose morals, Hitler's?

 

[James R]

So the desired goal to stop this mess is to make sure people know it's wrong, like you do? That will stop it?

It probably won't stop it. Some people still do things even when they know they're wrong. But it doesn't hurt to try. Some people will get the message.

Just need to educate people on proper morals? Whose morals, Hitler's?

No way. Hitler was a moral pygmy. Better leave this question to those of us who understand morality, Motor Daddy.

 

[Liebling]

So the desired goal to stop this mess is to make sure people know it's wrong, like you do? That will stop it? Just need to educate people on proper morals? Whose morals, Hitler's?

Wait, what? Whoa dude... setting your strawman on fire doesn't validate it as a good argument.

No one is suggesting you adopt anyone elses morals. We are asking you to find your own inside of yourself. Think about how it feels to be afraid and intimidated by another human being, then ask yourself if your behaviour might be doing that to someone else. It's really as simple as that. Better if the woman tells you she feels intimidated or asks you to stop but most women fear that it will trigger more negative attention and sometimes it does. Sexual harrassment is illegal in the workplace much for that reason. Creating a hostile environment that infringes on someone else's liberty is wrong in general. Just because you claim to be ignorant of it doesn't make it less true.

 

[Motor Daddy]

If it's legal, it won't get to a judge.

Correct, which means the behavior in the video won't get to the Judge, right? So it's not wrong, because if it was it would get to a Judge. Case closed (but then again, there never was a case, because it's not against the law.)

If I want a law made, I'll have to modify people's thoughts first, won't I? How do you think laws get made?

That's your problem. Maybe the Dems can fix it since they've had 6 years of power and 2 more years to fix this crap that they want fixed. If they can't fix it it's because not enough people think it's a problem. Keep working to change the attitudes about this, but please, stop calling it harassment, because harassment is a crime! If this can't be seen by a Judge then it's not a crime, and all this talk about wrong is BS. The law doesn't say it's wrong, you think it's wrong, in your mind (which is not to be confused with the letter of the law).

 

[cosmictotem]

Is it easy being a man, Tiassa, is it?

The Hollaback video was marketed by a viral video marketing agency. Take a look at the other viral video also marketed by Rob Bliss Creative.

“There is a large and unbridgeable gap between the culturally authorized idea of 'hegemonic masculinity' and the reality of everyday survival for men in crisis.”

The gender differences in suicide rates are significant. "The incidence of completed suicide is vastly higher among males than females among all age groups in most of the world." Men are twice as likely as women to developed alcohol dependency. 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations.

http://www.robblisscreative.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

I don't want to negate the suffering of males...I am male and some of us suffer legitimately even at the hands of women...but to be fair, instances of suicide and drug and alcohol dependency are primarily a self-inflicted suffering...yes, there can be extenuating factors such as cultural pressures and bad relationships but it's primarily self-inflicted...whereas, instances of rape and street harassment upon women is primarily men inflicting suffering upon women...women are primarily not going out and seeking these unfortunate interactions and results...Again, not to negate the existence of men legitimately suffering in other areas, but the analogy in this case I think doesn't fly...

I think a better case where men suffer legitimately (and in many cases at the hands of women) is in the cultural expectations we put upon men...The culture sends messages to men that say "You're not a man if you don't act a certain way....You're not a man if you don't have this obsessive drive to get laid...you're not a man if you don't respond to a females esthetic appearance rather than her mind...You're not a man if you don't indulge and provide for your wife or girlfriend's blind materialistic over indulgence... etc..."

And the result of this is men end up being socialized improperly...they end up in financial difficulties... they end up being called gay or weak or undesirable men if they don't conform to these societal expectations...

So men suffer in many legitimate ways and there is no need for them to try and compete with the suffering of women who also suffer and of course suffer to a greater extent due to the cultural expectations society puts upon men...It's all related and you can't solve one problem without addressing the other first...men need to be able to not respond to women just because of their appearance, to not have to be constant sexual animals, to not have to buy women with materialism, to not be tough but a refined, educated gentlemen and still be considered men..

You don't see this trend in the general culture...in many places (not all of course) you see it going in the opposite direction...men are expected to be uneducated, thuggish bodyguards for "their" women and aggressive providers of material resources through any means necessary...this male model of course leaves men susceptible to a great many pressures, life errors and dangers...

 

[Motor Daddy]

We are asking you to find your own inside of yourself.

I am telling you that the Judge doesn't care what I think is right and wrong, and he doesn't care what you think either.

 

[Liebling]

I am telling you that the Judge doesn't care what I think is right and wrong, and he doesn't care what you think either.

So all of your morals come from written laws, do they? And things are only immoral if they have a law written to prohibit their morality? Just asking so I know whether or not I can ignore all of your posts in Ethics, Morality and Justice since you don't grasp the basic precepts. Thanks.

 

[Trooper]

I don't want to negate the suffering of males...I am male and some of us suffer legitimately even at the hands of women...but to be fair, instances of suicide and drug and alcohol dependency are primarily a self-inflicted suffering...yes, there can be extenuating factors such as cultural pressures and bad relationships but it's primarily self-inflicted...whereas, instances of rape and street harassment upon women is primarily men inflicting suffering upon women...women are primarily not going out and seeking these unfortunate interactions and results...Again, not to negate the existence of men legitimately suffering in other areas, but the analogy in this case I think doesn't fly...

I think a better case where men suffer legitimately (and in many cases at the hands of women) is in the cultural expectations we put upon men...The culture sends messages to men that say "You're not a man if you don't act a certain way....You're not a man if you don't have this obsessive drive to get laid...you're not a man if you don't respond to a females esthetic appearance rather than her mind...You're not a man if you don't indulge and provide for your wife or girlfriend's blind materialistic over indulgence... etc..."

And the result of this is men end up being socialized improperly...they end up in financial difficulties... they end up being called gay or weak or undesirable men if they don't conform to these societal expectations...

So men suffer in many legitimate ways and there is no need for them to try and compete with the suffering of women who also suffer and of course suffer to a greater extent due to the cultural expectations society puts upon men...It's all related and you can't solve one problem without addressing the other first...men need to be able to not respond to women just because of their appearance, to not have to be constant sexual animals, to not have to buy women with materialism, to not be tough but a refined, educated gentlemen and still be considered men..

You don't see this trend in the general culture...in many places (not all of course) you see it going in the opposite direction...men are expected to be uneducated, thuggish bodyguards for "their" women and aggressive providers of material resources through any means necessary...this male model of course leaves men susceptible to a great many pressures, life errors and dangers...

Misogynists, Rapists, and Pedophiles

I agree, but we should try to minimize gender polarization and assert equality by raising the image of women instead of the lowering the image of men.

 

[billvon]

So it's not wrong, because if it was it would get to a Judge.

So the only things that are wrong are things that would get to a judge?

If someone knew you and your family, and they hated your guts, and they spent their lives in various non-illegal ways to destroy you and your family (harassed you, called you names, had their children pick on your children in school, called the police on you constantly for no reason, posted your name and address and all the bank information they could find on you on white supremacist boards, accused you of child molestation) - that would be fine with you as long as he never is brought before a judge?

 

[sculptor]

curiouser and curiouser

 

[Tiassa]

I don't want to negate the suffering of males...I am male and some of us suffer legitimately even at the hands of women...but to be fair, instances of suicide and drug and alcohol dependency are primarily a self-inflicted suffering...yes, there can be extenuating factors such as cultural pressures and bad relationships but it's primarily self-inflicted...whereas, instances of rape and street harassment upon women is primarily men inflicting suffering upon women...women are primarily not going out and seeking these unfortunate interactions and results...Again, not to negate the existence of men legitimately suffering in other areas, but the analogy in this case I think doesn't fly...

Briefly:

(1) It's true I would disagree with "self-inflicted suffering", but ...

(2) ... that really should be its own thread, especially considering that ...

(3) ... Trooper is exploiting the issue to troll the thread.​

See, that's the thing; she's responding to being criticized (↑) for trying to transform the discussion into #WhatAboutTheMen.

So, yeah. See the (ahem!) "irony" of what she did there? Her entire routine is to behave badly in order to complain about being criticized. We can save #WhatAboutTheMen for another occasion, when it is raised in a genuine, useful context. As it is, our neighbor denigrates the issue she appeals to.

• • •​

What follows from this, Joe? Anything?

One of the complications I'm seeing about this harassment denial syndrome is that it suggests one is wrong to go out and film what is observable.

You know, kind of like our American policy on warfare: If we want to have a discussion about war and peace, we don't need to see the hard truths about war in order to have that discussion.

I would also take a moment to remind, as general commentary:

Given these assumptions, what the video of the guy shows is a good-looking guy who is empowered by his looks, walking down the street and attracting wanted female attention - even from complete strangers! What a lucky guy! What guy wouldn't have his ego pumped by that! This is nothing to complain about!

There is this fact, yes, but we must treat it cautiously.

Consider the idea that there is a time and a place for everything. Naturally, that can be a controversial statement: "What about murder? What about nuclear war?" Well, in either case it depends on how creative one is willing to be, given that a time and place for murder is if a white guy picks a fight with a black guy, starts losing, and decides to "stand his ground" with a gun; we all know how that one goes. And nuclear war? Well, in truth, I can imagine various circumstances in which we might have need to detonate a nuclear warhead, but (A) even in the most realistic of those circumstances, the weapons are unable to reach the target—e.g., an inbound NEO that can be destroyed or deflected that way—or (B) a hostile EBE invasion, which, generally speaking, ain't happening anytime soon, although you're aware I often disclaim myself on such statements by reminding that the Universe could surprise us all and spontaneously end just before lunch on Sunday, or some such.

There is a time and place for what often sounds like sexual harassment.

When the rock star guitarist flips his axe over to reveal the "Show us your tits!" bumper sticker, and women all over the arena respond by baring their chests? I don't want that tradition to end.

Similarly, when women dress up for, say, a metal show, there are many who expect to hear comments. So someone might yell, "Lookin' goooooood, baby!" And there are plenty of women who will respond with something along the lines of, "You betchyer ass, muthafuckaaaaa!"

It's a low-key version of something I suggested in one of the rape discussions; it's true, I don't go to D/S clubs, and it sometimes seems somehow controversial to others that I don't consider this a specific quality of life issue. What is also observable at these shows is that (A) you don't say that to a woman in jeans and a t shirt, and, (B) doesn't matter how much she's showing off, you still don't touch unless you're specifically invited to, or the partner with some sort of standing permission. And the funny thing about it all is that much of the tacit honor code at a metal show arose because the censors of the 1980s were so intent on shutting down the genre. Every mishap was a reason. Whether a death or assault or merely a bloody nose. So we learned to take care of each other for that sake, and as we aged that became something a little less greedy and a little more genuine.

However, given that the specific point of dressing up a model to strut confidently down the street, showing off his nipples with the deliberate intention of gaining satisfaction through other people's comments? That does make rejecting your point complicated; there are obviously degrees between full generalization and complete nitpicking, but just because she showed us her tits, or dressed up for the show, does not mean she wants to do every guy in the room. Or any guy in the room. Or any woman, for that matter, since we need to make certain to throw a bone to the MRAs. It's kind of like the old Mark Steel joke about homophobic fearmongering: "What makes you think he wants you? You're a slob!"

And in the end, it's clear that there are many people in the world who can't tell the difference—or, perhaps, don't care—between someone dressed for going out on the town and someone who wants or at least isn't offended by that kind of general attention. Think about how much the partners are going to be annoyed if she's always dressing frumpy to avoid harassment and assault. You know, because as we hear from others, it's her responsibility to prevent other people's actions, to make up their minds for them.

So while the point can be reasonably applied in this specific case, it's still one of those sticky, complicated points that I always advise caution about because neither you nor I nor anyone else can control what other people do with the idea.

To wit, it's only after the fact, because the pranksters announced it, that we can rest assured that he was specifically seeking that attention.

And, you know, if "something had happened"?

But then again, that's also part of the reason this sort of #WhatAboutTheMen equivocation doesn't work. Generally speaking, guys don't have to worry that their refusal to acknowledge that kind of harassment will result in someone trying to rape or murder them for their refusal to be grateful.

There are places I can go if I want to be viciously sexually harassed, or even cornered and compelled gratify other people; that's the point of those clubs. And they still exist; how the rough clubs with dark back rooms tacitly reserved for such outcomes will function now that we're not only post-Lawrence but also post-Windsor and post-Kitchen, remains to be seen—I no more expect that they will disappear than swinger clubs. But that's just the thing: It's not meant for general consumption.

By the time I finish staking boundaries on the point, it's just not one that I use. And this is part of the ethical problem with the Model Pranksters video; they reinforce the proposition that people ask to be harassed according to their appearance.

I would also note that being an actress is not the same thing as being a model. Not all actors and actresses look like models. But a statistically "unattractive" woman still gets harassed.

Men? It's hard to say. We might recall Rickey Wagoner (↱), the harried bus driver who gained fame when he claimed a book of Bible verses took a bullet for him and saved his life, and then fell into infamy when police felt they had no choice according to the evidence to argue that he literally shot himself. One wonders how much of whatever motivated his apparently false report of an attempted murder by three black men involved men wanting a piece of his ass. And while there is, by superstitious saying, someone out there for everyone, no, Mr. Wagoner does not fall within the statistically normal definition of an attractive male. It would be interesting to know how much of the crime he perceived around him involved anyone threatening him for not being grateful for being sexually harassed.

And, in truth, my own witness in history is closer to the Deutsch cartoon L/R posted (↑); I don't think that sense of jealousy would be so common if they felt threatened by women informing them how hot they look.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Bus Driver's Bullet-blocking Book Tale Is 'Not True': Police". The Huffington Post. June 18, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. November 6, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/police-story-of-bulletblo_n_5509625.html