(War on Women) NYC: 10 hours of Harassment or Compliments?

[PaulConventionWV]

I detailed earlier in the thread the list of sexual assaults - not cat-calling that I would expect them to enforce existing laws and only create new laws if there was some loop hole that makes a conviction problematic. Like I said when I posted that I do not see what possible loop holes there would be under existing laws.

This makes no sense. We already have a formidable mountain of useless, pointless legislation and you want to add to it by making laws that have loopholes? Why advocate for any new laws at all? Adding to the mountain of bureaucracy wouldn't help a single thing.

I am assuming you do not really have a problem with that just as I agree with you that I would not want free speech curtailed.

I am sure he does have a problem with more laws, however redundant. More laws, more problems. The fact that they're redundant doesn't make them any less wrong. The Constitution doesn't allow room for new laws on the issue, not even practically useless ones. The more laws that exist, the easier it is to use them against us by twisting and contorting their meaning.

As for the other part, my bad job of trying to add some levity to the thread. I was trying to see if you or anyone remember some of the other debates I got into with you guys that went down like this.

I still think my weed analogy was valid. You're treating cat-calling like it's just a pre-cursor to assault, as if it belongs in the same class of behavior and should be treated with scorn because of that.

 

[thoughtomator]

Back to my earlier analogy, it's like calling for begging to be criminalized because some beggars follow up refusal with robbery.

Or like criminalizing asking for the time, because pickpockets often like to use that line to distract a mark.

Three felonies a day, people - the point of all this is to make you subject to arbitrary force of the state. It has nothing at all to do with making women comfortable.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I detailed earlier in the thread the list of sexual assaults - not cat-calling that I would expect them to enforce existing laws and only create new laws if there was some loop hole that makes a conviction problematic. Like I said when I posted that I do not see what possible loop holes there would be under existing laws.

I am assuming you do not really have a problem with that just as I agree with you that I would not want free speech curtailed.

As for the other part, my bad job of trying to add some levity to the thread. I was trying to see if you or anyone remember some of the other debates I got into with you guys that went down like this.

I opposed Ken Cuccinelli's attempts to work around 'loop-holes' as well, and he had a WAY clearer case than this one.

In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

 

[jmdrake]

I meant that no one arguing in this topic has advocated a legislative solution. How could feminists look to the state for a solution on this issue, when for one thing, the state and its agents have proven themselves to be one of the largest purveyors of violence against women? That being said, however, the fact that the creators of this video offer a lousy solution to the issue doesn't invalidate their criticisms by any means. It's a fallacy to suggest otherwise.

And so far you haven't offered any solution. None. Zilch. Nada. It doesn't matter if you don't support new legislation if you are helping to push the agenda of those who want new legislation without actually offering a non legislative solution.

Just so we're clear... I don't think a simple "good evening" is enough to constitute harassment. From an annoyance standpoint (and it can be unnerving at times), I do see an issue with a "good evening" being used on the street in an attempt to draw someone into further conversation, especially when it's clear that the other person just wants to get somewhere without feeling obligated to reply. Also, an extended conversation can sometimes come off as creepy more than flattering. This is probably a minority of cases, but there were still some instances of this in Jessica Williams' video, so I felt as though I should address it. There is a genuine difference between people exchanging pleasantries and street catcalling. If you can't differentiate between "Cool <insert article of clothing here>. My name is _________. What's yours?" and "HEY BABY YOU LOOK GOOD!", then I don't really know what to tell you.

If you don't have the common sense to know that the video did NOT differentiate then I don't know what to tell YOU! Come on. Take out the pleasantries and her "1 hour" of "street harassment" boils down to may 15 minutes. And as for the "Hello" you don't want to respond to? Keep walking. The "extended conversation" you don't want to get drawn into? Keep walking. How have I handled drug dealers (at least that's what they appeared to be) who were asking me to come over and talk to them? I kept walking. How do I handle "aggressive panhandlers" if I don't want to give them any money? I just hold up my empty hands and keep walking. It's not that hard. The bimbo in the video kept walking for 10 hours. Despite all of the "concern" about how this all "leads to assault" she was never assaulted.

I see this sort of thing as being largely context-dependent. If it's clear that I'm willing to socialize, i.e. at a party or a bar or some other social setting, and not already engrossed in something else, and someone says "good evening" to me and the conversation wanders on from there, great! It is always rather irksome when someone tells me to smile, though, as I'm not a naturally bubbly person and there is nothing more fake-feeling than a forced smile. Maybe I don't feel like expending the energy, and what it suggests to me is that the person telling me to smile has no regard for any personal concerns of mine that may not be something to smile about.

Great. When you go out in public wear a t-shirt that says "I have a chip on my shoulder. Don't talk to me." Hopefully the overly bubbly people in the world will get the message. Of course the next person to say "Why don't you smile" might be some old grandmother.

The Constitution is irrelevant in this forum discussion because the main concern is trying to change private interactions between private people. The people on this topic all know the speech is protected by the Constitution (if I'm wrong, let it be known that I disagree with anyone saying otherwise... but I honestly don't look to the Constitution for my stance on this issue), but does that mean it's desirable? No. There is nothing wrong with trying to educate men on how many women hate catcalling.

I didn't argue with you on that point. But Gunny's right. The constitution is never irrelevant. And from a libertarian perspective, NAP is never irrelevant. Someone says "Smile" or "You look nice" is not a violation of NAP. Nor should the world be forced to conform to what you think is irksome. And again, if you really want to change this behavior, than work on the girls/women who go around enabling it by reacting positively to it and/or being crass themselves. Nigerian emails only keep coming because they work. Telemarketing only happens because it works. Cat calling only happens because it works.

 

[kahless]

Nobody should have to live in fear, but we all have some level of fear because the world is an uncertain place and we can't control what other people do or say to us. We can only control how we react, and the best way to react is not to freak out and try to control everyone else. It's to control yourself and make sure you have the means to defend yourself.

And cat-callers != aggressors. That's the point I'm trying to make. You keep saying things like "cat-callers that get aggressive" as if it were somehow inevitable that words would turn into violence. It's a false paradigm and you keep buying into it.

To almost quote Forest Gump, Cat-callers are like a box of chocolates for women, you never know which one you are going to get. I believe the fear to be justified.

Then why are you trying to control what people say? Let's stop talking about this nonsense about transforming the collective mind of society and instead do what we can to improve our own personal ability to react. Why are you accusing society of thought crimes against women when we could just give women the means of self-defense and solve the problem far more easily?

Like I said a few times earlier in the thread the video was tame they could have showed worse. You disagree since you say that is reality but I disagree since I have seen worse. I have seen incidents that started out tame, escalated to being disrespectful and overtly sexual to aggressive body language to a point where I thought I was going to have to put an animal down.

It would be way more effective if we just dropped the whole conversation about changing the culture and instead focused on personal self-defense.

The whole reason feminism promotes cultural change (and NOT self-defense) is because they want people to feel helpless. If it's everyone else's fault, then you have to rely on something far more powerful than yourself to fix the problem (government). If you can't help yourself then you need society to help you and only government can make society behave a certain way. What you're doing is buying into the idea of helplessness that we're meant to feel without necessarily advocating for government control. Why not get rid of the idea of helplessness and take control of yourself instead of relying on the creeps of the world to change? You can't depend on other people for your own self-defense, so the whole idea of cultural change is pointless because it just won't work. You can't control other people, but you can control yourself. That's what we need to focus on.

What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city. For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior. Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.

 

[jmdrake]

What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city. For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior. Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.

And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?

 

[kahless]

I opposed Ken Cuccinelli's attempts to work around 'loop-holes' as well, and he had a WAY clearer case than this one.

In the immortal words of Barry Goldwater, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault. So here is a hypothetical question for you. Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes. The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.

If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that? Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.

 

[kahless]

And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?

I never said the video was perfect, in fact said it was tame and that they could have done better. I gave my observations on cat-calling. The fear women have IS justified. Legislation for non-threatening free speech is not.

 

[kahless]

I still think my weed analogy was valid. You're treating cat-calling like it's just a pre-cursor to assault, as if it belongs in the same class of behavior and should be treated with scorn because of that.

Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.

 

[Danke]

Women shouldn't leave the home without a chaperone.

 

[kahless]

Women shouldn't leave the home without a chaperone.

If a woman plans on visiting a high crime area and the chaperone is named Smith and Wesson then I agree.

 

[Danke]

http://youtu.be/uP1Vxu2erq4

 

[dannno]

Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.

Already answered:

Back to my earlier analogy, it's like calling for begging to be criminalized because some beggars follow up refusal with robbery.

Or like criminalizing asking for the time, because pickpockets often like to use that line to distract a mark.

Three felonies a day, people - the point of all this is to make you subject to arbitrary force of the state. It has nothing at all to do with making women comfortable.

Most of the time it is NOT followed up with assault.

It's called life. Beggars will always ask for money, men will always make sexual invitations. If you feel especially afraid, maybe the city isn't for you.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

To almost quote Forest Gump, Cat-callers are like a box of chocolates for women, you never know which one you are going to get. I believe the fear to be justified.

Then work to arm women. Despite what you believe, though, most cat-callers are not violent, and unless women find themselves alone in a shady place, there is very little cause for fear. If they walk around in fear in the middle of Times Square, then their fear is unreasonable. Women should know that they have very little chance of being assaulted. For the rest of the times, we need to ensure our ability to defend ourselves. We don't need legislation or "dialogue" or culture or anything for that. We just need ourselves, and that's what I'm promoting, self control. Not people control.

Like I said a few times earlier in the thread the video was tame they could have showed worse. You disagree since you say that is reality but I disagree since I have seen worse. I have seen incidents that started out tame, escalated to being disrespectful and overtly sexual to aggressive body language to a point where I thought I was going to have to put an animal down.

Who knows what the reality is, but it almost certainly falls somewhere in the vicinity between what you have seen and what the video shows. In that case, I see no reason to be too concerned about it. For those who do find themselves in dangerous situations, there's always self-defense, and self-defense is a much more powerful tool than any misguided campaign bumbling around trying to change society so that women can feel safer. Changing society isn't going to change the nature of the individual, and there will always be a risk of crime no matter what you do. So defend yourself and stop trying to control what people say to you on the street.

What you describe is not the real world. Maybe one day women will have the right to open or concealed carry in the city. For the time being I see nothing wrong with working on stigmatizing the behavior. Even if they did have the right there are just some people where that is not going to be possible, so again nothing wrong with stigmatizing the behavior.

Oh, right, you're one of those "until something good happens, let's not do anything about it and instead focus on something far more difficult and nuanced that we can't control" people. You've got completely the wrong attitude. Self-defense isn't always about guns. People need to adapt and learn to defend themselves however they can. It would still be a billion times more effective than going on an aimless mission to change society. Stigmatizing the behavior is completely pointless because you still never know when you're going to run into one of the people who just didn't listen. Literally, the ONLY thing you can rely on is your ability to defend yourself, so start working on that and you won't even have to worry about the stigma.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Okay, listen up, you uncouth bastards. Hollaback is giving dating advice:

If you’re hoping to get your flirt on, there’s many different ways to do so without coming off as a creep! Comments on a shared experiences (“this coffee is the bomb”), conspicuous books (“I haven’t read that yet, is it any good?”), cute accessories (“that watch is sweet”), or current events are all things that make us swoon. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/myths/#sthash.eQyAfOPg.dpuf

I think their swooning advice is totally fabulous! Meet me over lattes for a discussion of Breakfast at Tiffanys. Bring your sweetest timepiece.









.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And promoting a video where someone saying "Good evening" is equated to someone following a woman around for 5 minutes stigmatizes what exactly?

Good question. The people advocating some sort of societal change don't even know what their goal is. What are they trying to stigmatize? Well, anything that makes women scared.

Ha, right. That's a little too broad for me. I think I'll stick with self-defense and controlling my own response rather than relying on society to change everyone else for me.

 

[kahless]

Already answered:



Most of the time it is NOT followed up with assault.

It's called life. Beggars will always ask for money, men will always make sexual invitations. If a woman feels especially afraid, maybe the city isn't for her.

I agree, fixed in bold. Those that put up with it may want to make life a little easier by stigmatizing the behavior through these groups. Some of it in the video was a bit unfair. More power to them if it helps as long as they do not get any legislation passed (other than ensuring existing sexual assault laws are enforced).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I posted their list which includes various forms of sexual assault. So here is a hypothetical question for you. Lets say ejaculating on women in the subway becomes the new hip-hop fad with a group that objectifies women as simply bitches and hoes. The current law is at the judges discretion but liberal judges are just giving the offenders a fine and probation.

If this or some group came forward with a new law that prison confinement and required psychological screening as a deterrent would you have a problem with that? Like I said if people are getting away with sexual assault I want them to enforce existing laws but how can one say we never need a law to stop the unknown as a deterrent.

Because laws don't stop crime. If you believe you need to "keep your options open" then you certainly don't believe in the Constitution. Laws were never meant to prevent crime. They were meant for justice after the fact. Enacting a law to stop crime will only result in more people becoming criminals and empowering the government to target whomever they want.

 

[dannno]

Despite what you believe, though, most cat-callers are not violent, and unless women find themselves alone in a shady place, there is very little cause for fear. If they walk around in fear in the middle of Times Square, then their fear is unreasonable. Women should know that they have very little chance of being assaulted.

I can understand why some women have what may seem to be irrational fears of being assaulted - good chance they've either witnessed or experienced it themselves. I feel bad for them, the people who assaulted them should be punished if they haven't been and really it probably comes down to being the fault of those who assaulted them which causes their irrationality.

But I don't blame the peaceful cat caller on the street for their assault and subsequent attitude and I don't expect them to change their behavior because of somebody else's bad behavior.

If a clown assaults a child, do we blame all clowns and ban clown colleges so that child won't ever feel uncomfortable since they may have to be around clowns again? Or would it be more healthy for the child to finally realize that a bad person, dressed as a clown, assaulted them and that not all clowns are bad- maybe they will lose their fear.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, sometimes it is a precursor to assault and should be treated with scorn. The fear is justified.

This is your problem. You're far too open to legislative solutions and muddying the definitions is what that leads to. If we treat cat-calling like a precursor to assault, then suddenly it's justified to treat free speech like violent behavior.

It is also not debatable that, far more often than not, the fear is NOT justified. Most cat-callers are not violent and women who walk around in broad daylight on a crowded street really need not fear being assaulted. And if you do find yourself in a dangerous situation where there aren't people and it's dark, then first of all, make sure you know where you're going, and secondly, learn how to defend yourself. As long as you do these things, then you need not worry about what society is going to do to help your situation. There is a very good chance that it won't be able to do a damned thing for you.