Street Harrassment.!!!

What is the main reason you thank Men behave like they did in the OP video.???

  • Nature

  • Nurture

  • Other (please discuss)

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Motor Daddy said:
There is no law against eating Spinach, but I don't do that either. You, on the other hand hate Spinach so much that you want to see all people that eat Spinach 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?
Click to expand...
Law is no substitute for morality.

Law is founded by morality, not the other way around.
 
Before everyone flies off the handle here...

Greetings.

I think, as occasionally earlier, people are talking past each other a bit. Perhaps I - yes, irrefutable Me; no flash photography, please - can settle some of these.

MD: James, what MD is saying about legality and morality is essentially correct. No one can be arrested for a law that does not exist. This is not Nero's Rome. Well, it's someone else's, but that's a longer subject.

That being said, James is indicating the higher calling of moral nature and implicates it in the creation of law. This is correct. You are not - from your comments - against any such law, but even as what resembles a strict constitutionalist you must see that there are social demands beyond those regulated by law. What about gentlemanly conduct? Basic decency? James isn't demanding arrests - no East Korean, he - but he feels strongly, as do I, that this society would be a better place with more consideration and less "hey baby baby". It wasn't nice when Justin Bieber did it, and it isn't nice now. And this is correct. If you were put in the same place of near-constant catcalls and whistles and the occasional douchebag walking beside you because he thought it would look like the two of you were together, you'd probably smack someone. This is a difficult area for women, not that most areas aren't difficult in this society. And sometimes it's hard to recognize sexual harassment even when it's staring you in the face for hours... like maybe after buying that girl at the table in the corner two drinks and she still won't give you her phone number, because you've been staring into her face for hours - and she thinks that's "a little too desperate" or whatever.... but, I digress.

The upshot - great word - is that you wouldn't do this, because it's anti-social and assholish. You'd probably tell someone off on the street for doing it. Well, the former follows from that latter - it's not particularly chivalrous, and reprehensible.

Joe: the video appears legitimate to me. Perhaps they're just very good actors, but it seemed highly believable. Obviously, since you challenge the data, decision must, practically, attend confirmation in your eyes. This is your right as an observer, naturally. I don't feel it's correct, but I could be wrong. I have written them to ask for such confirmation. In doing so, I blamed it on you, much as one invents a friend with an uncomfortable question. I don't know that this is an ideological matter. Harassment is not uncommon and it strikes me that NYC would be particularly rife for it, given its reputation. Most women in major metropolitan centres almost certainly are harassed at some point, and some of it is surprising. There are various links in the links below.

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/our-work/nationalstudy/
 
Tiassa, I appreciate your argument above, but can we have a thread in which your not attending D/S clubs is not a feature? One begins to wonder at this string of denials.
 
GeoffP said:
Joe: the video appears legitimate to me. Perhaps they're just very good actors, but it seemed highly believable. Obviously, since you challenge the data, decision must, practically, attend confirmation in your eyes. This is your right as an observer, naturally. I don't feel it's correct, but I could be wrong. I have written them to ask for such confirmation. In doing so, I blamed it on you, much as one invents a friend with an uncomfortable question. I don't know that this is an ideological matter. Harassment is not uncommon and it strikes me that NYC would be particularly rife for it, given its reputation. Most women in major metropolitan centres almost certainly are harassed at some point, and some of it is surprising. There are various links in the links below.

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/our-work/nationalstudy/
Click to expand...

It's true what you say about most women in Metropolitan areas feeling harrassed and threatened by males who make the kinds of comments in the videos. I have experienced it myself on several occasions, though for me it seems pretty rare because I usually travel in packs with my co-workers or I am just walking too fast to hear them. I also just realized that I wear headphones and am listening to books most of the time and that I listen only to my environment and usually ignore what people are saying unless there is some sort of chaos going on around me. I think that if I had heard the kinds of comments she had heard, then I would not feel safe at all walking that route and would find an alternate way to get where I was going.

But see, women shouldn't have to make alternate arrangements because they feel threatened or unsafe. It makes our rights unequal to men's rights when it comes to our basic liberties. Some women can ignore it, but that doesn't mean that men should still do it and women should just "grow a pair" and get over it. We can't, and just like there are reasons we protect people from harm, there are reasons you shouldn't be asserting your overactive sexual drive on unwilling females who feel threatened by your actions. It's not just immoral, it's hostile and invasive and actively effects us as women.
 
Well if you don't take your headphones off you'll never get to hear my really good shouts.
 
GeoffP said:

Well, it's just that that's a bit of a reverse take on the usual attack on inference: that is, I would have expected your critique to go just because this woman was harassed doesn't mean other women are, rather than just because some women were harassed, it doesn't follow that this woman was harassed.
Click to expand...

Heh. I used to wonder long and hard about why it is that certain strains of Marxists (and Maoists) really favor Alfred Jarry, and all things ‘pataphysical—myself included, for that matter. But the real question is why some (read: self) are drawn even more consistently to a darker, more dangerous sort of Absurdity. It’s like, there’s a pool of liquid mercury and it’s a really hot day—or should it be “but it’s a really hot day”?

Regardless, when it’s intentional it can be fun and all, and even provocative; but when it’s unintentional there’s just so much more to speculate, interpret, and fume about.
 
GeoffP said:
Tiassa, I appreciate your argument above, but can we have a thread in which your not attending D/S clubs is not a feature? One begins to wonder at this string of denials.
Click to expand...

It would not have come up except someone asked, not so long ago. And then, in the course of that discussion, it became necessary to remind that it's not really a quality of life issue to avoid a club I don't want to be at, anyway.

And it is relevant here in two ways:

(1) The point reminds that there is a time and a place for everything, as such.

(2) It reminds of the sharp contrast in harassment experiences between men and women; I literally have to go out of my way to be sexually harassed in a context I might find threatening, which in turn kind of wrecks the word harassed, as such; avoiding this situation is a fairly easy undertaking, and my concerns are primarily medical, anyway insofar as I have a hard time figuring what could be more unsafe, unless I'm sharing needles with strangers while other strangers gang-bang me without condoms. And come on, really? I don't do heroin. Neither can I say I've been properly gang-banged by strangers, so flip a coin.​

There is also a peripheral point I can make based solely on my own experience: The day I turned forty, I was "off the market" by custom, which is a similar argument to Daisy Mae fretting that she's getting old and hasn't found a husband ... as she approaches her twentieth year. And that even comes without pregnancy risk. But here we are, eighteen or so months later, and that old custom is completely destroyed. Having hidden throughout my formerly "marketable" years, the world I'm emerging into is fascinating. But here's the thing: Compared to women, I have very little fear of sexual harassment or violence—I have to go looking for it.

That you spend more time thinking about me in a D/S club than I do? I'm not sure that's even interesting, but either way only you would know why. But yes, in truth, it's an abstraction to me; if I intend to allow my body to be treated in a rough and degrading manner, I have the luxury of preferring that should occur within the confines of a secure relationship. Statistically, I have greater cause to fear sexually transmitted diseases; even if I do somehow find myself in one of those dark corners at a club, choking on some random stranger, the odds are still confidently strong that I will not end up in a hospital or morgue as the result of injuries sustained from such an encounter. And in no way need I fear that someone will try to rape and kill me for ignoring a "compliment".

Okay, okay, I can see how an analysis of the processes and priorities of your imaginings would be fascinating, but that also applies to most people.
 
Sculptor said:
I would argue that law is based on custom and tradition and not on morality.
Click to expand...

Law is an expression of customary and traditional morality within the society. Your phrasing actually invites a certain clarification: Can you please list the societies that considered themselves fundamentally immoral?

That is to say, even tyrants don't say, "How can I be evil today?" They frame themselves in their own minds as righteous.

You can not legislate morality.
Click to expand...

Funny how people keep trying, right? Well, not so much. And it is also striking how often some try to legislate morality in such a way as to diminish women's avenues to respond to and deal with misogyny.
 
Tiassa said:
Law is an expression of customary and traditional morality within the society. Your phrasing actually invites a certain clarification: Can you please list the societies that considered themselves fundamentally immoral?
.
Click to expand...

Just because a person or society does not consider themselves immoral, doesn't actually mean that they are not immoral.
Consider, if you will, slavery, the draft(civil war and viet-nam), the eugenics laws, ethnic cleansing, concentration and death camps, etc...
Laws and morality may occasionally be coincidental, but that does not equate to causality.
 
Obvious Questions

Sculptor said:
Just because a person or society does not consider themselves immoral, doesn't actually mean that they are not immoral.
Click to expand...

That argument requires an assertion of a fixed, universal definition of what is and isn't moral. How do you identify those fixed, universal morals?

• • •​

Trooper said:
Apparently, she's never met anyone like Tiassa.

Maybe you should set her straight, eh?
Click to expand...

And well she should be. There are plenty of gay men who simply loathe women. And it's not always clear whether that comes from jealousy or mommy issues.

Meanwhile, what's your excuse? How did misogyny become part of your secular sanity? What motivates your misogyny, Trooper? Why do you hate women so much?
 
motor daddy said:
Caution: Lip flapping above!

Maybe you have a problem understanding? If there is no law then you can't do sh!t about it! Do you comprehend that concept? You can talk about how you can't stand it all you want to, but if you aren't applying your efforts to making a law, you ain't doin' sh!t to fix the problem, you are just flapping your lips! Nothing changes with lip flapping, as evidence in Congress. You want something done? Then quit talking and start DOING!
Click to expand...
That was from the guy who thinks other people are "lip flapping" - irony blindness is practically a defining characteristic of that political faction.

So far, I think I am unique here in posting a proposed doing: I suggested that a carefully phrased civil law establishing a presumption of liability for consequences, similar to the ones establishing presumptions of liability for traffic accidents and the like, might have a surprisingly large effect on street harassment without in the least violating anyone's rights or attempting to regulate street conversation and neighborly friendliness. The suggestion is based on the observation, here and everywhere, that the guys who harass women on the street are aware of what they are doing and capable of curbing their impulses - all this bs about neighborly friendliness and twirling with a smile goes right out the window when the supervisor walks into the room, or the cop gets out of the car, or the judge leans over the podium, or the commanding officer lays down the rules, or any other woman with the ability to visit consequences on that mouth shows up.

They know when it's safe to harass. They only harass when it's safe to do so. So make it less safe. Rig things so they are starting a fight, using "fighting words"or the like (a standard legal category), and whatever happens next is going to be paid for by them. It would only take a couple of cases.
 
Tiassa said:
What motivates your misogyny, Trooper? Why do you hate women so much?
Click to expand...

I don't hate women, but I don't hate men, either. I don't hate anyone, but you are starting to get on my nerves.

See ya around, Tiassa.
smiley-face-cheekkiss.gif
 
Sculptor said:
Just because a person or society does not consider themselves immoral, doesn't actually mean that they are not immoral.

Tiassa said:
Obvious Questions
That argument requires an assertion of a fixed, universal definition of what is and isn't moral. How do you identify those fixed, universal morals?
Click to expand...

I do not think such a universal definition exists now, nor ever has, nor ever will.
(the closest I've seen is : "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you")

Without a fixed anchor how can a law be derived from a moving target?
 
Tiassa said:
And well she should be. There are plenty of gay men who simply loathe women. And it's not always clear whether that comes from jealousy or mommy issues.
Click to expand...

It's not always jealousy or mommy issues. Some women are complete bitches, just like some men are complete assholes. If your sample set of experiences are all bitchy women, then you might just hate all women. Gay men usually just date other men, so if all the women in their family/friendships as they grew up happened to be cunts, then voila. I'm fairly sure misogyny is an active hatred, not a passive one. And there's the whole fear of the swamp thing :p

Most of the men in my family are alcoholics, and I hate the bar scene in most straight bars for that reason. In my early adulthood I certainly related male drinking with men being drunk assholes and didn't date a single man who drank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top