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

[PaulConventionWV]

Why not? How would a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word (no legislation involved) personally affect you? You've already said you don't engage in the behavior, and you supposedly tell your friends not to do it, so...?

Because it would be far more effective if people would choose not to be affected by the constitutionally protected free speech of others than to start some non-descript campaign against cat-calling. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Who am I to judge if someone wants to find a lover out on the street? If they see someone they want to get acquainted with, they have the right to attempt to get to know them. Just because I wouldn't do it, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do it at all.

The whole notion of this vague dialogue that's supposed to somehow have a positive effect somewhere down the road is so vague and hypothetical that it's pointless to talk about it. Let's focus on the real problems instead of caring so much about what people say and hear in public.

You can't make society change its opinion. If your idea is a good one, then it will be adopted by society with or without your help. Do you think the civil rights movement of 1964 needed MLK Jr? No, he was just representing an idea that happened to be what people wanted. If it weren't him, it would have been somebody else. So if society feels the need to make cat-calling taboo, then it will come to be with or without your "dialogue."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

www.StopStreetHarassment.org is another organization advocating for passage of new laws because current laws don't cover what is in the video. I looked at the Harvard article. My understanding is that any new law would be radically different from existing law in three ways:

1. Eliminate the need to define harassment as repetitive;

2. Eliminate the need to define harassment as intent;

3. Change application to cover any public street.



From Stop Street Harassment's website:

The following are some ideas for campaign member activities:

1. Take the report to local council people who are sensitive to women’s issues and discuss street harassment with them. Propose a law that fines men who verbally harass women in a sexual or sexist manner. Ask them to introduce it and support it.
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/toolkits/campaigning/

The only issue is that verbal harassment is already generally illegal in much statutory language and/or application. Language would need to be changed to side-step the three above criteria. It sounds like a tall order in the context of past court decisions, but it can be gradually done. Moving work place harassment code to public street application, for example, is now aided by omnipresent cameras. Also, intent could be partially sidestepped by replacing the statutory language of "explicit" with the more vague "implicit."

I would say that anyone working with these groups at any level will be nothing but co-opted suckers. Anybody actively opposing these shrewd weasel organizations much crush them to dust like a chalk rock on the street.




.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Because it would be far more effective if people would choose not to be affected by the constitutionally protected free speech of others than to start some non-descript campaign against cat-calling.

The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

 

[jmdrake]

Why not? How would a future in which we all treat cat-calling like the N word (no legislation involved) personally affect you? You've already said you don't engage in the behavior, and you supposedly tell your friends not to do it, so...?

Well the current present where someone can lose his job for using the word "niggardly", which has absolutely no racial connotation whatever, sucks. That said, the "worst of the worst" on the street harassment don't give a rats ass what you think. They aren't the Donald Sterlings of the world that have multimillion dollar enterprises that you can boycott. They listen too and, in some cases produce, music calling women B's and H's. And lot's of women buy their music, dance to it, and ride their jocks. It's a simple situation of supply and demand. Here's Lupe Fiasco rapping about the problem of women enabling their own negative stereotypes.



You want to change the culture? Work on the girls. I guarantee guys wouldn't try cat-calling if it didn't work at least some of the time.

 

[jmdrake]

The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue.

Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP.

My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening." You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before. I didn't think he was hitting on me. Maybe he was? I have been hit on by gay guys before. Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either. And I've been hit on by women I didn't know. That actually made my day. Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt. It's normal human interaction. In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?" I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad." Their response? "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?" If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture. Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal. But saying "Good evening?" Or even saying "Smile?" That should be a reason to hate on someone? That's just stupid and petty.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP.

In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening." You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before. I didn't think he was hitting on me. Maybe he was? I have been hit on by gay guys before. Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either. And I've been hit on by women I didn't know. That actually made my day. Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt. It's normal human interaction. In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?" I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad." Their response? "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?" If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture. Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal. But saying "Good evening?" Or even saying "Smile?" That should be a reason to hate on someone? That's just stupid and petty.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story of my life. Which is precisely why I know that this effort to make men stop acting like men is BS. With all my indoctrination in liberal feminism I am still petrified at the thought of even looking at a woman for longer than a second, because it has been drilled into my head from kindergarten up that 'just looking at a woman wrong is akin to rape, and it will offend her.'

I recognize the OP video's propaganda, because I have been a victim of it my entire life.

Are there men who are desperately wrong? Of course, just like there are women who are desperately wrong. I am probably in the top 1% of this forum for advocating the harshest punishment for sexual assault. That's not going to stop me from recognizing BS as BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI

Wow, I actually liked that, a lot - and there is very little Hip Hop and Rap that I actually enjoy. The compare/contrast thing he was doing between the self-imposed "thug lifestyle" and the same people doing the stereotype 'blackface' to themselves was extremely powerful, and the message was poignant and moving. More Rap and Hip Hop artists need to follow in this guy's example -- he's doing it right.

It seems to me that a lot of the early Rap and Hip Hop were more into meaningful messages and such, and I remember liking a bunch of songs back in the day, but when it went all "thug gangsta bitches and hoes" I peaced out.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

The Constitution is never irrelevant. The actual producers of the video in the OP of this thread are arguing for a legislative "solution," and I have been the recipient of all kinds of horrible, uncomfortable, offensive, and sometimes downright scary speech in my day, and I would rather die than to even consider legislating against it.

I had one guy going off about how I "Oughtta be lined up against a wall and shot" for opposing the NC Marriage Amendment. Dude had NRA stickers all over his pickup. Legally that may have even crossed the line into an actionable threat that could have caused him to be arrested. Did I call the cops? Hell no. Did I start being extra-careful to carry my own handgun around for a while after that? Hell yes. What this guy said to me worried me enough that I literally felt concerned for my life, but even at the height of it I would never have dared to dream of trying to silence that bigot.

I just don't come off of my liberty position, even when that position stands to cause me great personal harm.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

Are you serious? They don't do it to other men because they don't want to. It wouldn't harm them if they did. I'm sure most men would brush it off. I would. I know, as a human being, that you are capable of brushing it off as well. Don't tell me you are incapable of protecting your fragile psyche from the words of others. I know this just as well as any woman. Your mind is not that delicate.

If nobody is advocating a legislative solution, then what solution are they advocating? What real solution is there?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP.



In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening." You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before. I didn't think he was hitting on me. Maybe he was? I have been hit on by gay guys before. Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either. And I've been hit on by women I didn't know. That actually made my day. Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt. It's normal human interaction. In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?" I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad." Their response? "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?" If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture. Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal. But saying "Good evening?" Or even saying "Smile?" That should be a reason to hate on someone? That's just stupid and petty.

I was reading your post to the beat of the song you posted. Oddly enough, it actually seemed to fit.

Great song, by the way. Very interesting and insightful.

 

[kahless]

The Constitution is never irrelevant. The actual producers of the video in the OP of this thread are arguing for a legislative "solution," and I have been the recipient of all kinds of horrible, uncomfortable, offensive, and sometimes downright scary speech in my day, and I would rather die than to even consider legislating against it.

I had one guy going off about how I "Oughtta be lined up against a wall and shot" for opposing the NC Marriage Amendment. Dude had NRA stickers all over his pickup. Legally that may have even crossed the line into an actionable threat that could have caused him to be arrested. Did I call the cops? Hell no. Did I start being extra-careful to carry my own handgun around for a while after that? Hell yes. What this guy said to me worried me enough that I literally felt concerned for my life, but even at the height of it I would never have dared to dream of trying to silence that bigot.

I just don't come off of my liberty position, even when that position stands to cause me great personal harm.

The Constitution is irrelevant here. No one is advocating a legislative solution to this issue. My criticism of your argument is as always: you don't get to define what a "real problem" is. If cat-calling is mostly innocent, why don't men do it to other men? There can't be any harm in telling another man to smile, can there?

What part of what she wrote in bold do you not understand Gunny.

Are you serious? They don't do it to other men because they don't want to. It wouldn't harm them if they did. I'm sure most men would brush it off. I would. I know, as a human being, that you are capable of brushing it off as well. Don't tell me you are incapable of protecting your fragile psyche from the words of others. I know this just as well as any woman. Your mind is not that delicate.

You are doing what you have been doing throughout the thread which is ignoring that it sometimes goes beyond words and the fear that women have to live with not knowing which one it is going it be. Why do you have such issue with women wanting men to stop scarying the crap out of them by following, blocking, surrounding and using threatening or overtly sexual language?

If nobody is advocating a legislative solution, then what solution are they advocating? What real solution is there?

When there is no legislation involved it is actually very Libertarian for people to organize with a message to change peoples behavior. They are partly doing some good as long as none if it results in legislation of speech.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What part of what she wrote in bold do you not understand Gunny.

Apparently it is you who refuse to accept that the producers of the video in the OP are using it to push legislative 'solutions.' I'm not the one having a reality denial problem here. And again, the Constitution is never irrelevant.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You are doing what you have been doing throughout the thread which is ignoring that it sometimes goes beyond words and the fear that women have to live with not knowing which one it is going it be. Why do you have such issue with women wanting men to stop scarying the crap out of them by following, blocking, surrounding and using threatening or overtly sexual language?

This is the whole point. Words and actions are two different things. It's a very simple concept. Stop treating cat-calling like it's the same thing as assault. Don't deny it; that's exactly what you're doing. Everyone has to live with the fear that some random stranger is going to kill them at any moment, but it's not usually realistic. This is why we need guns and the means to self-defense. If women were allowed to defend themselves, it would stop the problem in an instant and would be 100% more effective than trying to purge society of its thought crimes with some non-descript campaign. If we have the means to defend ourselves, we don't need to care about what words people say on the street. In the meantime, though, stop acting like the words are just violence waiting to happen. Do you shrink in fear every time someone greets you? The line between words and actions is very clear, so stop caring about what men say on the street and deal with the actual problem.

I don't have an issue with them wanting anything. They can want all the want, but nobody here has any solution to it. Before you criticize me for not joining the cause, just tell me what the cause is. What is the goal? What do we do to achieve it? So far the answer is to talk about it. Some answer. The only thing that can be done is for women to arm themselves and learn how to defend themselves. That is the only solution to this problem. Anything else is bullshit.

When there is no legislation involved it is actually very Libertarian for people to organize with a message to change peoples behavior. They are partly doing some good as long as none if it results in legislation of speech.

This is ridiculous. You have no solution except to sit around and talk about it. That's what you're advocating. Instead of talking about how bad men are, why don't we fight for legalizing self-defense? That would solve the problem more than any of your wishy-washy campaign to change the behavior of others. That's just how society works. If the message is good, society will adopt it freely with or without your help. Sitting around and having a "dialogue" isn't going to do any good. Giving women back their right to defend themselves is.

 

[kahless]

Apparently it is you who refuse to accept that the producers of the video in the OP are using it to push legislative 'solutions.' I'm not the one having a reality denial problem here. And again, the Constitution is never irrelevant.

I already described where I would agree with them on enforcing existing laws and creating new laws if there are any loop holes. None of that included non-threatening language.

The real problem is your usage of Facebook, hoodies and PaulConventionWV bringing up weed and 'reefer madness' so frequently.

 

[kahless]

This is the whole point. Words and actions are two different things. It's a very simple concept. Stop treating cat-calling like it's the same thing as assault. Don't deny it; that's exactly what you're doing. Everyone has to live with the fear that some random stranger is going to kill them at any moment, but it's not usually realistic.

Women should not have to live in fear of sexual assault when walking from point A to point B from cat-callers that get overly aggressive. We are going in circles now since this how the conversation started with you. Saying what I just wrote does not mean cat-calling is the same as sexual assault.

This is why we need guns and the means to self-defense. If women were allowed to defend themselves, it would stop the problem in an instant and would be 100% more effective than trying to purge society of its thought crimes with some non-descript campaign. If we have the means to defend ourselves, we don't need to care about what words people say on the street.

I agree.

In the meantime, though, stop acting like the words are just violence waiting to happen. Do you shrink in fear every time someone greets you? The line between words and actions is very clear, so stop caring about what men say on the street and deal with the actual problem.

I don't have an issue with them wanting anything. They can want all the want, but nobody here has any solution to it. Before you criticize me for not joining the cause, just tell me what the cause is. What is the goal? What do we do to achieve it? So far the answer is to talk about it. Some answer. The only thing that can be done is for women to arm themselves and learn how to defend themselves. That is the only solution to this problem. Anything else is bullshit.

This is ridiculous. You have no solution except to sit around and talk about it. That's what you're advocating. Instead of talking about how bad men are, why don't we fight for legalizing self-defense? That would solve the problem more than any of your wishy-washy campaign to change the behavior of others. That's just how society works. If the message is good, society will adopt it freely with or without your help. Sitting around and having a "dialogue" isn't going to do any good. Giving women back their right to defend themselves is.

Going in circles again. Like I said it is a good thing if they can change the culture by keeping people taking about it which may stop the threatening behavior of some as long as legislation is not passed for non-threatening speech.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Except the feminazis that created the video in the OP.



In the OP video some of the "cat-calls" were literally a man saying "Good evening." You keep ignoring that for some odd reason. But as a man I have had another man tell me to "smile" before. I didn't think he was hitting on me. Maybe he was? I have been hit on by gay guys before. Not something that I welcomed, but I didn't freak out either. And I've been hit on by women I didn't know. That actually made my day. Some women in this thread have stated they actually appreciated the occasional flirt. It's normal human interaction. In conversations that I've had with female friends about women I was attracted to, but didn't approach, they would say "Well why didn't you smile or say hello?" I responded "I wouldn't want her to get mad." Their response? "Why would you think a crazy thing like that?" If a guy took the stupid OP video seriously, he would think most women walk around with a chip on their shoulders ready to hate on any guy that made any kind of friendly gesture. Walking beside someone for 5 minutes is not acceptable, but should not be illegal. But saying "Good evening?" Or even saying "Smile?" That should be a reason to hate on someone? That's just stupid and petty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I already described where I would agree with them on enforcing existing laws and creating new laws if there are any loop holes. None of that included non-threatening language.

The real problem is your usage of Facebook, hoodies and PaulConventionWV bringing up weed and 'reefer madness' so frequently.

See there we go. You advocate for new laws and I do not. I am not sure what is wrong with my Facebook footprint, and I have never said 'hoodies' in my life, so I assume that this is yet another product of your imagination.

 

[kahless]

See there we go. You advocate for new laws and I do not. I am not sure what is wrong with my Facebook footprint, and I have never said 'hoodies' in my life, so I assume that this is yet another product of your imagination.

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.

 

[dannno]

Here's the problem - we've already had one woman comment here saying that she enjoys being cat called. The fact is, even though RG REFUSES to admit it, some women actually like being cat called, even by men they may not be attracted to. They see it as a compliment and unless they are in a dark alley with nobody around realize that they probably won't be assaulted and so that thought doesn't even occur to them. Then we have had another female post that sometimes they enjoy and sometimes it is creepy depending on the who and the how. The thing is, whether a cat call is 'sexual' or 'creepy' or whether a woman feels fear, elation or otherwise from hearing it it will be different for EVERY WOMAN. And that is the point - these men are looking for the woman who feels elated, who feels comfortable enough to be complimented in public and whose first thought isn't 'holy shit this guy wants to rape me'.

Honestly, 95%+ of cat callers wouldn't even cat call women who don't feel comfortable, but there is no way of knowing until they do it. Most don't do it to make women feel uncomfortable, they do it to weed out the ones who feel uncomfortable from those who like it because they aren't interested in the type of women who would feel uncomfortable. So really, all most women have to do if they don't feel comfortable is show it - and that is where the woman in the OP failed, she didn't do what most women who feel uncomfortable do and show it, deceiving these guys into thinking that maybe she was enjoying it, maybe she was considering in her head whether she liked it or not and that is why she didn't show any negative attitude towards it.

I've said this before, most women have had some type of sexual trauma from men in some form, some worse than others. Could be from an ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, a family member, a superior or authority figure, total stranger, etc.. There are two ways women act after being sexually traumatized in order to deal with the trauma - one is to block sexual thoughts from their head unless they are with a special person who they trust - the other is to realize that sex isn't that big of a deal so why feel traumatized at all? The second type is the kind of girl you can make a sexual innuendo and she doesn't freak out and might even turn her on - the second type is the kind of girl who you can cat call and will feel complimented and maybe, just maybe might even enjoy it. The second type is the kind of girl who is more open about sex, if not in a relationship may see sex as something that can be done relatively often, at times with new people they have just met and are more spontaneous. This is what cat callers are looking for, the second type of woman. Not the first. So if you are the first type, you can end the harassment just by showing it a little, they will usually stop.

I think these men have EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to use their free speech to weed out the first type in order to find the second type of woman so they can maybe have a conversation with a woman and maybe even get laid. I would hope they would do it in a way that doesn't make the first type of woman too uncomfortable because those feelings may come from some bad experiences in their life and I would hope they would be semi-polite about it but from what we saw in the video it turns out most are.

If you want to reduce cat calling, legalize prostitution, I honestly don't think anything else will really affect it besides possibly tyrannical laws. Guys are always going to try and get laid, for most of us that is the nature of being a male and that won't change. The only reason I don't cat call is not really even out of politeness, but out of the fact that it isn't really in my personality.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Women should not have to live in fear of sexual assault when walking from point A to point B from cat-callers that get overly aggressive. We are going in circles now since this how the conversation started with you. Saying what I just wrote does not mean cat-calling is the same as sexual assault.

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. Most of the time, though, unless women are in a dark alley with nobody around, then they don't really have any reason to be afraid. 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.

I agree.

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?

Going in circles again. Like I said it is a good thing if they can change the culture by keeping people taking about it which may stop the threatening behavior of some as long as legislation is not passed for non-threatening speech.

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.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Educate away, but many won't listen and that's the reality you're eventually going to have to deal with whether you like it or not. Look at it this way: If you had the means to self-defense, none of this would matter. No amount of cat-calling could intimidate you. Isn't that better than trying to change the minds of everyone in society?