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

[Philhelm]

I am all in favor of changing culture from the bottom up. Indeed, that is the only way to bring about social change. But, frankly, I don't know a single person who would behave that way so I don't feel there is much I can do beyond saying that I can appreciate why women might object to some of this crap. Good luck.

Never listen to what women say; always watch what women do. A lot of behaviors that women say turn them off are often behaviors that attract them. This is where the Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic comes into play. A woman may say that she wants a stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, kind man, but ultimately such a man can only fill a boring provider role ("Beta Bucks"). Meanwhile, the man that can command a woman and play with her emotions will give her the tingles ("Alpha Fucks").

 

[acptulsa]

Divide and conquer, how does it work? This thread is a small case study. The propaganda media is playing some of you like fiddles.

This.

And the worst part is, most of us here know full well that The State wants to destroy the family unit, so The State can play Mommy and Daddy to everyone. And I think more than a few of us here know that, like the sheiks of Araby for the last few hundred years, the fact that more than a few women are inclined to fight over a powerful man even if they lose a few good men in the process has never bothered those in power one bit.

Yeah, the Battle of the Sexes has always been terrible. But, like democracy, the only thing worse is any of the alternatives.

A neurotic populace is easy to manipulate. If we don't watch for efforts on the part of the powers that be to make us as neurotic as they can, we are fools.

...it's in all likelihood a breeding and cultural problem that is reinforced by popular culture and a few other forces.

It's a force of nature and a fact of life. It, like a million other things, is something that some people naturally do well, others have to learn and some can never get. To smile and converse with a person and give them a nonthreatening casual compliment is something almost everyone on earth appreciates. Even rude catcalls are something that no small number of people dream of getting thrown their direction. I'm not changing the subject from apples to oranges, here, either. This is one topic, with varying degrees of good, bad and over the top.

Hell, the true irony is that no one can teach a boy how to do this right better than a father can, but so few families are able to stay together in the face of governmental and media opposition to the traditional family unit that dads never get the chance. Not that this bothers the government; creating the problem and then creating a string of non-solution solutions like the ones mentioned here doesn't bother the current crop of powers that be one bit.

RG, surely there's a better way to address liberal concerns than abandoning liberty principles 'just this once' (not that you've only advocated this sort of thing only once). I know I've always found libertarian principles to lead to better solutions myself--and can almost always convince a liberal of the same.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What about the experiment where women supposedly stare at a guy with a supposedly huge penis?

Everyone knows that women "check out" other women just as much, if not more than men.

Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

Here's an interesting case. There was a city that put a ton of money into revitalizing this particular street with restaurants and bars on it. It never was a slum, just kind of neglected. It became very popular. The more crowded it became, the more of a bad element showed up, harassing women on that popular street. Police had trouble keeping up with it, and as you suggested, many people stopped going there, especially women. Kind of a shame how a few bad apples could ruin economic development like that.

 

[Matt Collins]

Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...


- There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)


- There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless...


- Then there is just being overly friendly or outgoing.


In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Only women deserve pity in our society. Of course, most women (and I mean every woman that doesn't have a hideous disfigurement combined with a rancid stench) will never know what it is like to be truly lonely. Women have a higher sexual market value which is why they can typically date up; a female "3" will have a much easier time finding a mate than a male "3." No job? No house? No car? No worries! Not so for a male.

Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.

The market for sex is more accurately a barter economy that happens to be terribly inefficient. It isn't that women set their standards (or price) too high, it's that in a barter economy, there is no medium of exchange and thus the task is to find a partner that is both desirable and reciprocates that desire. Using this analysis, we avoid oversimplification and pave the way for some libertarian solutions, the biggest one of which is dating sites (they reduce transaction costs).

Suggesting that women heighten their standards, thereby encouraging "good men" to develop into their possible partners is analogous to suggesting that women form a cartel in which the agreement is to "not settle for bad men," but as we all know from Micro 101, there is an incentive for members of this cartel to defect; in other words, settle. So there will never be a solution to this ill that supposedly plagues society.

The final problem with the usual "economics of sex" argument is that it ends up arguing that the men who pay the highest price for sex (marrying, "settling down") are the best men, but this is obviously biased and doesn't take people's wide sexual preferences into account. Essentially what this analysis is saying is that the best men hire the most expensive prostitutes.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is nothing but more padding for HITlery win in 2016.

Hillary 2016!

I really wish people could zoom out and see the big picture.

Their only desire is to now get men and women to engage in the same exact debate that's happening in this thread. They want the men on Romneybushpaulclinton side and the females to side with Hilary.

They divide us by race, sex, color and religion all day, every day and most of us walk right into it. All these people know how to do is get us to HATE.

Actually, it's worse than that. Men will also be convinced that voting for Hillary and "going against men" is a good thing.

This was a somewhat revealing analysis from a leftist on how the demonization actually works:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?461918-Tribalism-and-code-words

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...

- There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)

- There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless...

- Then there is just being overly friendly or outgoing.

In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

And any grabbing or blocking a person is in that first category.

 

[jonhowe]

How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the genuinely objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?

The demographic is poor and uneducated. In Manhattan, that's mostly blacks and hispanics. In parts of queens and brooklyn it comes from all over the world and in all colors.

I'll admit you don't get much of THIS kind of harassment in Chinatown or Koreatown, though.

 

[PRB]

Upon giving this more thought... I think there should be a clarification of the different types of behavior on display here...


- There is threatening behavior which should never be tolerated and is never acceptable (carrying of weapons would help individuals om these circumstances feel more secure)


- There is rude or uncouth behavior which can rise to threatening, but most of the time it doesn't and is harmless...


- Then there is just being overly friendly or outgoing.


In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

Indeed. Explicit threats or repeated harassments are already illegal, anything short is protected speech.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Once I was man-handled and pushed into a store by two (very drunk and seemingly violent) men in broad daylight (the owner and the men were speaking in a foreign language so I knew I wouldn't get any help there) - I really thought I would be fighting for my life that day - I grabbed my keys in my pocket and was really considering the best time to slash them.

That is criminal. They should be prosecuted.

 

[acptulsa]

Look, I'm just as much of a fan of economic analysis as anyone you'll ever meet, but there are several situations that cannot adequately be analyzed through the lens of simple supply and demand. Sex is one of those things. Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is ...

...absolutely NOT what the man did. Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.

That is criminal. They should be prosecuted.

Amazing, isn't it, how many people thing passing a host of new laws for enforcement to enforce will help us enforce the laws we already have?

 

[jonhowe]

Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

I like my (Manhattan based) job, and I'd rather put up with the neighbors (and the reggaeton at 2am) than leave the city!
That doesn't mean I need to condone and just accept the threatening and aggressive behavior of a minority of my neighbors.

If I could afford to live in the Village or Park Slope I would.

Vote harder and ban it.

Putting words in the mouths of everyone on the other side of the issue doesn't help.

I certainly am not suggesting legislation of any kind. Men, all over, simply need to stop tolerating this kind of behavior in each other. Call it out; name and shame the assholes who do this kind of thing.

By discussing the phenomenon (which, clearly many here still fail grasp the severity of) we can bring it to the attention of those who may not regularly think about it and get them to call it out when they see it, too.

 

[jonhowe]

In the OP, most of the behavior displayed was friendly or just uncouth.

Nothing in the OP was in any way friendly. What planet are you on??

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Men are, statistically, many more times likely to be the victim of a violent crime than women are.

Just sayin...

How long are you going to dance around the fact that 100% of the genuinely objectionable behavior in the video comes from an extremely specific demographic?

True story that combines those two ideas. A guy was walking down the street in San Francisco (Marxist heaven) with his wife and kid in a stroller. A guy (bum) was walking past, and pulled out a knife and cut him in the arm as they walked past. Just a little blood, not enough to require stitches. (Infections?!) He finally got the attention of some Police, and the guy hadn't gotten too far, so the Police stopped him. The Police pretty much said to the victim "you look okay, you'll have to file charges and go to court if you want to pursue this". He says yes. Some weeks, if not months later, he got a call from the courts (DA?), and asked him again if he really wanted to file charges. Pretty sure he had to go to the court, and identify the guy in court. The court had wanted to drop it, and interestingly, the initial Police report listed the race of the assaulter as "white", when in reality he was black. Either the Police made a mistake in their report, or they wanted to skew stats, or they wanted the case to get thrown out.

 

[Acala]

Never listen to what women say; always watch what women do. A lot of behaviors that women say turn them off are often behaviors that attract them. This is where the Bad Boy/Nice Guy dynamic comes into play. A woman may say that she wants a stable, honest, intelligent, humorous, kind man, but ultimately such a man can only fill a boring provider role ("Beta Bucks"). Meanwhile, the man that can command a woman and play with her emotions will give her the tingles ("Alpha Fucks").

I don't think you have it quite right. Women are attracted to men who are confident. Unfortunately, being an asshole can look like confidence. But a man doesn't have to be an asshole to be perceived as confident. In fact, he can be all of the things you list as "beta" but still be confident and attractive. It is the confidence that is key. Sadly, men who have every reason to be confident because of the characteristics you list as "beta", often have the idea that they should also be docile and compliant. THAT'S where the sexual attraction starts to drain away.

 

[dannno]

Essentially casting women as the supply curve and men as the demand curve is extremely reductive because it treats women as objects and ignores the myriad individual variations in sexual or relationship preferences. A more apt analogy is to consider men and women as independent agents rather than as a simple producer-consumer relationship.

I disagree about the independent agent vs. supply thing and demand and here is why.. Society tends to think that attractive people have these 'high standards' because, well, that's just the way they are. They think a hot female should not be attracted to an unattractive male because some how their attractiveness is inscribed in their DNA and their DNA is attracted to attractive people. That is total bullshit. Attractive people say they aren't attracted to unnattractive people because they don't NEED to be. If they weren't successful with attractive people all of a sudden, let's say they gained weight or have a horrible personality or get into some sort of accident, you will likely find them lowering their standards.

A person's standards is a function of their attractiveness and a) sexual drive or b) relationship drive

A woman who has a low sex drive and medium relationship drive and is moderately attractive will have higher standards than a woman who has a low sex drive and high relationship drive who is equally attractive. A man who has a high sex drive and a low relationship drive is moderately attractive will have lower standards than a man who has a low sex drive, low relationship drive and is equally attractive.

This is why Phil's theory works so well, women do in fact 'fuck 'up'' and men do in fact 'fuck 'down'' due to these supply and demand differences, not because these 'independent agents' have these inherited 'standards' that are ingrained in their biology and seem to relatively match their own attractiveness level.

You are right about women defecting and 'settling down', that happens often....but before that happens they are having sex above their grade with a few guys who are having a lot of sex while less attractive guys who may actually want to date them may be sitting at home alone.

In other words, yes, women are fooling themselves when they have sex with a very attractive guy - if they are doing it purely for sexual reasons, then good for them, but if they aren't doing it just for sexual purposes and are actually trying to get a longterm relationship out of it, well, that is their right and they can try if they want but ultimately they will probably be unsuccessful.

 

[Deborah K]

This goes here:

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

...absolutely NOT what the man did. Read it again, and figure out where you twisted it.

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:

Part of the reason is that sex has a "market value" and women know that they can use that in order to obtain things that they want. Women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. To give sex freely is of little worth to a woman. This is why "slut-shaming" is usually done by women against other women, since a woman that gives sex freely is undercutting the competition.

"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.

Exactly, don't go to places where people behave this way.

If you don't like America, well, you can just leave!

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:


"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.


If you don't like America, well, you can just go leave!

I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.

 

[acptulsa]

Perhaps I should have been more clear by quoting one of his other posts in my response. I'll reproduce what I was specifically responding to below:


"Women are the gatekeepers of sex" pretty clearly indicates that women are meant to be seen as the suppliers in his analogy, and slut-shaming has been discussed as a method of "preserving the cartel" - exactly what he is saying here.

And my point is that men want women and women want men. And anyone who is trying to interfere with that, or trying to get people to go for what they don't really want in a member of the opposite sex, is propping up the divorce rate and making people miserable, and is therefore an enemy to humanity.

And as libertarians, we are fools to address the problem on their terms. That makes us part of the problem, when we are all better off figuring out how to untangle the whole thing and become (thereby) a part of the solution.

What's more, when you propose a solution that does not go against the natural instincts of people (even if it's just a cogent and erudite version of 'Don't worry about it,' you are more convincing to people of every political stripe.

I could make a video of me walking in the crappy section of a city for 10 hours with me carrying a 6 pack and produce a video of a dozen hobos asking me for a bottle.

No need to carry that much weight. Just put something the size and shape of a pack of cigarettes in your shirt pocket.