Street Harrassment.!!!

[Motor Daddy]

But it would be better still if - and I regret again agreeing with Tiassa even on a point so obviously true - we could address male behaviour over the necessity for female defense, preventing harassment instead of constantly refining reactions to it.

The Army has always done it that way. Soldiers simply aren't allowed to catcall, period!

Catcalling is unprofessional! In the Army everyone is expected to conduct themselves as a professional at all times! That means downtown on a Friday night drinking at the bar...no catcalling for that Soldier is allowed!

But civilians like to have professional standards during work hours, and then different street standards after hours. They don't catcall in the workplace, but they do it on the street after hours, and their work doesn't care unless their employee hits the front page news headlines, then the employee is fired, because the company would be losing money if they kept the employee on the books.

But in the Army, your feet are held to the fire!! 24/7

 

[youreyes]

Bells, I do not want to engage with you on this topic.

ha welcome to fear world.

I had the same thing happen to me when "engaging in discussion" with Bells.

The firing squad is right next to her, when your on the "wrong" side of discussion.

 

[GeoffP]

The Army has always done it that way. Soldiers simply aren't allowed to catcall, period!

Catcalling is unprofessional! In the Army everyone is expected to conduct themselves as a professional at all times! That means downtown on a Friday night drinking at the bar...no catcalling for that Soldier is allowed!

But civilians like to have professional standards during work hours, and then different street standards after hours. They don't catcall in the workplace, but they do it on the street after hours, and their work doesn't care unless their employee hits the front page news headlines, then the employee is fired, because the company would be losing money if they kept the employee on the books.

But in the Army, your feet are held to the fire!! 24/7

I suppose - it went on in my unit. Some guy kept creeping over to the women's barracks and hanging out there. They'd catch him a couple times a day. His NCO didn't want to charge him, and had no idea what to do, so it went on until he was at the end of his rope. I'd never seen a 6'4" Master Corporal almost cry until that day.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I suppose - it went on in my unit. Some guy kept creeping over to the women's barracks and hanging out there. They'd catch him a couple times a day. His NCO didn't want to charge him, and had no idea what to do, so it went on until he was at the end of his rope. I'd never seen a 6'4" Master Corporal almost cry until that day.

Weak NCO.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The Army spends a ton of money training a civilian into a soldier the first year. They have a lot invested and they can't afford to keep losing trained soldiers. It is counterproductive to the mission to have to keep stopping and dealing with these petty problems that can escalate into a big time waster and ultimately could end up costing peoples lives having to deal with catcalling. If you give structure to individuals it will help them, not hurt them. That's how the Army transforms brand new Privates into Soldiers. They give young 18 year old kids that have no clue, structure!!

 

[youreyes]

They give young 18 year old kids that have no clue, structure!!

and than turn these kids into PTSD homeless veterans.

 

[sculptor]

Congress treats soldiers like tissue paper, use them then throw them away.

 

[iceaura]

I am going to lean towards no harm meant in every case without substantial evidence otherwise. If she would have said to the guys alongside her, "leave me alone" and they continued, then yes its harassment. We all get along better when we communicate than when we have on our 'bitch face'.

Or you could be an imaginary Gayle King and just be smilin' and twirlin' like anything, it's so much fun - communication ftw!

Meanwhile, your boss does not get harassed like that regardless of her mood. Funny how all this crap about "I was just saying hi" disappears when there are consequences riding on the woman's perspective. You guys aren't actually as clueless and idiotic as you sound here - you know better.

Without her telling them its space encroachment, I dont think one can say harassment

When it's a woman whose opinion they need to worry about, guys can think for themselves - they don't need to be told obvious stuff over and over again, every block the same shit, every day the same behavior, every new woman a new target for abuse.

Catcalling is unprofessional! In the Army everyone is expected to conduct themselves as a professional at all times! That means downtown on a Friday night drinking at the bar...no catcalling for that Soldier is allowed

And all of a sudden these guys know the difference between catcalls and compliments, neighborly and abusive, communication and harassment - when there are consequences, the bullshit walks.

I still want to see the video of one of you treating Gayle King like that with her bodyguards handy, or your mother, or your boss, or your daughter, or a police officer, or anyone who can teach your mouth a lesson.

 

[Landau Roof]

Here's a telling cartoon on the OP topic. Don't you agree?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Or you could be an imaginary Gayle King and just be smilin' and twirlin' like anything, it's so much fun - communication ftw!

Meanwhile, your boss does not get harassed like that regardless of her mood. Funny how all this crap about "I was just saying hi" disappears when there are consequences riding on the woman's perspective. You guys aren't actually as clueless and idiotic as you sound here - you know better.

When it's a woman whose opinion they need to worry about, guys can think for themselves - they don't need to be told obvious stuff over and over again, every block the same shit, every day the same behavior, every new woman a new target for abuse.

And all of a sudden these guys know the difference between catcalls and compliments, neighborly and abusive, communication and harassment - when there are consequences, the bullshit walks.

I still want to see the video of one of you treating Gayle King like that with her bodyguards handy, or your mother, or your boss, or your daughter, or a police officer, or anyone who can teach your mouth a lesson.

 

[Motor Daddy]

and than turn these kids into PTSD homeless veterans.

It's a sad situation indeed, but who would you hold accountable for that? I mean, would you recommend the government take care of all veterans needs (read $$) for the rest of their life???

 

[tali89]

If someone is harassing me, yes, I would be the one to determine if it is harassment. Why? Because it is happening to me and is affecting me directly and it would be based on how I feel about the person's actions towards me.

So you define 'harassment' based on the say-so of the supposed victim, instead of via legal definition or social consensus? You are aware of the implications of this, I'm sure. A sword of Damocles would be hanging over the head of every male (since males can't be harassed according to James R). While Hugh Jackman could gyrate against strange women in the street and be met with affection and an exchange of phone numbers, the average worker bee man would need to avert their eyes from women in public out of fear of being accused of harassment. Indeed, you'd have men actively going out of their way to avoid contact with women. They would cease to look or talk to them. They would refuse to work with them. Male doctors would refuse to treat female patients, male teachers would refuse to talk to female parents, male plumbers would not be able to fix a burst water pipe for a female client. Dates would no longer occur as they do now, with the man (usually) initiating the courting process. Indeed, I suspect courtship and relationships would come to an end. Such paranoia would be justified if your sexist and paternalistic views were enforced.

 

[GeoffP]

The complaint, like all complaints, is leveled by the complainant. Guilt is established in a court. I don't believe the poster was actually suggesting otherwise.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The complaint, like all complaints, is leveled by the complainant. Guilt is established in a court. I don't believe the poster was actually suggesting otherwise.

If there is no law it's not illegal.

The law makers are elected by the people. If the people want a law against shoe compliments, then they vote. If it's law then let the litigation begin when a shoe compliment is given!

Until then, no shoe compliment law, no valid "shoe compliment" complaints.

 

[Landau Roof]

Has it occurred to anyone that if women were to wear abayas, or at least dress very modestly, that would cut down on a lot of harassment. Think about, things like push up bras and lowcut blouses, or tight black clothes like in the OP video, are they necessary? I'm not saying women's fashion ought to be regulated, but a lot of what they wear is deliberately provocative. Men don't wear stuffed codpieces and upholstered tops, unless iffen they're the Batman.

 

[GeoffP]

If there is no law it's not illegal.

True. An action can be immoral without being illegal, of course. For example, politicians, lawyers and business leaders often have children.

The law makers are elected by the people. If the people want a law against shoe compliments, then they vote. If it's law then let the litigation begin when a shoe compliment is given!

Until then, no shoe compliment law, no valid "shoe compliment" complaints.

Shoes are a bit distal from the expected means of harassment - unless some explicit sexual connection could be made. If such a connection could be made in context, it falls under standard laws about sexual harassment. No law regarding individual items of wear could be established; that would certainly be impractical.

 

[GeoffP]

Has it occurred to anyone that if women were to wear abayas, or at least dress very modestly, that would cut down on a lot of harassment. Think about, things like push up bras and lowcut blouses, or tight black clothes like in the OP video, are they necessary?

They're not necessary. But the solution to the problem of harassment is not to constrain women further, to demand they cover up or even to promote that they do so. That would be, in actual effect, the so-styled "Infinite Protection Advocacy": you women, do things differently - carry out a balancing act of behaviour and personal protection that becomes increasingly complicated as attackers find new ways in which to attempt to sexually attack you. That argument regarding the pressure of IPA has solid merit - taking as read the arguments about attackers, the direction of actual social preventative advertising/advice, etc., etc., which I don't think has been done in a detached analysis, but is highly probable based on a priori guesswork.

Putting women in abayas might cut attacks by strangers - but then what? Should women perhaps be confined to the house next? Maybe we could simply trim away that component of emancipation and suffrage that enables women to work outside the home. Then there would surely be no attacks! But what about the man who is just unable to control himself even in the house? Maybe he could have several wives in order to keep his behaviour under control.

Now, I know no sane person could really argue for such an insane progression, and I know you're not. And it could be argued that relative to a hundred years ago - actually, it could not be argued thus; it is a stone-cold fact - that women's dress (and men's, really) has become more revealing. But this in itself is also a sign of inherent objectification. Could not such issues - objectification and assault - be better controlled by addressing, at this penultimate point, the behaviour of men rather than women? Even a woman walking down the street in a thong invites no attacks, though she might invite scorn. The action of sexual assault is a 'decision' process, conversely. It requires a selection of behaviour that is inextricable from the final action, which is the assault. That lone action is the essential issue: the assault. Can not we address ourselves to that more cleanly and effectively than one ever could do by adding still more items to the behavioural tightrope-walk of women's sociality?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Shoes are a bit distal from the expected means of harassment - unless some explicit sexual connection could be made. If such a connection could be made in context, it falls under standard laws about sexual harassment. No law regarding individual items of wear could be established; that would certainly be impractical.

Unless you want to start with a law that says that it's unlawful to talk to women at the bus stop, there has to be some line there. The shoe compliment was a starting point. If that was allowed then we need to look at what we wouldn't want to be allowed, and where that line is. There has to be a line there, set in stone, otherwise it's pure insanity!

Edit: We never got past the shoe compliment, Bells thought that to be harassment and for me to be a weirdo for saying that. So "distal" is not quite the word I would have used. More like "extreme."

 

[iceaura]

Has it occurred to anyone that if women were to wear abayas, or at least dress very modestly, that would cut down on a lot of harassment.

Sure. That's how Saudi Arabia does it. It fails, of course - as one would expect from any policy that operated as an extension of street abuse rather than an opposition to it.

Lycurgus did something like that to cut down on robbery and similar money crimes - he had all the residents of Sparta trade in their gold for an equivalent value of iron bars.

Think about, things like push up bras and lowcut blouses, or tight black clothes like in the OP video, are they necessary? I'm not saying women's fashion ought to be regulated, but a lot of what they wear is deliberately provocative.

Provocative of what - being abused on the street? How does that work, exactly? How does that square with the earlier comments here about the woman in the video inviting abuse by "having her grump on" in public?

Unless you want to start with a law that says that it's unlawful to talk to women at the bus stop, there has to be some line there.

The army has no problem drawing that line, according to you.

And none of you guys has any problem finding that line when talking to women whose perspective is going to govern the consequences you face. Men seem to have much less difficulty curbing their impulses to harass people when those people can do something about it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Men seem to have much less difficulty curbing their impulses to harass people when those people can do something about it.

So does that include me? I'm a man.