# Casual harassment



## Basti (Oct 29, 2014)

A woman filmed 10 hours of herself walking normally around the city and then made a compilation of every man who called out to her.



I think people need to talk about this kind of thing a lot more

Discuss.

[OPINION]
Now, I know for a fact that (astounding though this might be) a lot of women don't like this kind of thing happening to them. Others agree but say that the more innocent "How do you do" sort of comments are fine, even pleasant, and that they shouldn't be condemned. That may be so, but I don't think that's the point here. I think the simple fact is that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.

I'll freely admit that it makes me sick to the stomach. I have "my fair share" of sisters, I'm in a relationship, and I've heard the same argument more than a few times...it gets scary and it's a lot to handle especially for someone who just wants to go about their everyday life.

What the hell is going on in people's minds? 
[/OPINION]


----------



## splinter8451 (Oct 29, 2014)

In 10 hours she only collected less than 2 minutes of harassment? 

New York is slippin'.


----------



## vilk (Oct 29, 2014)

reproduction is the biological meaning of life


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

vilk said:


> reproduction is the biological meaning of life



So?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Oct 29, 2014)

I was under the impression that this was a "highlight reel," and not *every* single instance of street harassment.

We live in Brooklyn, and my girlfriend gets constant comments whenever she leaves the apartment, even during the two-block walk to the subway. Unless she's with me, or a male friend, in which case she gets zero.


----------



## SpaceDock (Oct 29, 2014)

If you don't think that every man is being judged by every woman and everyone is judging everyone else for that matter; you re crazy. 

The second anyone sees anyone else, we start judging and assuming. The only diff here is that the men are verbalizing it.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 29, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> I was under the impression that this was a "highlight reel," and not *every* single instance of street harassment.



Indeed, the video does state that they got over 100 instances of it.

Sadly, there are plenty of skeevy guys in this world. However, while she's pointed out the problem fairly effectively, she hasn't offered a solution. I don't blame her for that though, because this is an issue that doesn't have a quick fix. The only thing that will take these people out of the equation is time, combined with decent men (a group I'd like to think I'm part of) continuing to be decent.



vilk said:


> reproduction is the biological meaning of life



Half the guys in these videos were sitting in groups at the side of the street doing sweet bugger-all other than catcalling, ergo I think it's safe to say that they have no lives.

Besides, reproduction is probably the _last_ thing they want.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

Xaios said:


> However, while she's pointed out the problem fairly effectively, she hasn't offered a solution.



The solution is guys stop being skeevy assholes.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2014)

Basti said:


> I think the simple fact that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.



Opinions being what they are, I gatta disagree that such a general claim can be made about "the majority" of men. I feel like this whole movement lately to prevent objectification is, instead of making men more considerate of women (which I assume is the goal, and I get that it's well intentioned), is instead vilifying us, and turning any male expression of sexuality into something shameful.

I'm not defending people who cat-call or otherwise harass anyone, but a lot of the arguments take the tone of "look how terrible all these men are! men are terrible!" and I can't stand behind that kind of statement.

I don't deny that some of the examples in the video are certainly problematic, but you're talking about someone who spent _ten hours_ of their life searching for people to make examples of, with the intention of calling out anyone who says "have a nice day" as some kind of sexist.


Edit:


SpaceDock said:


> If you don't think that every man is being judged by every woman and everyone is judging everyone else for that matter; you re crazy.
> 
> The second anyone sees anyone else, we start judging and assuming. The only diff here is that the men are verbalizing it.


Agreed.


----------



## Randy (Oct 29, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> We live in Brooklyn, and my girlfriend gets constant comments whenever she leaves the apartment, even during the two-block walk to the subway.


----------



## jimturmoy (Oct 29, 2014)

I agree with your opinion. I'd be curious to see a follow up video where she tells what an appropriate approach would be to her, and perhaps show a few examples she filmed. There had to be at least one guy in 10 hours of walking that wasn't a total creep like the ones in the video . It's sad that so many men act like that, it makes approaching a women with the intent of actually striking up a conversation so much difficult because they become so jaded.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I don't deny that some of the examples in the video are certainly problematic, but you're talking about someone who spent _ten hours_ of their life searching for people to make examples of, with the intention of calling out anyone who says "have a nice day" as some kind of sexist.



They spent ten hours walking around NYC. These people did make examples of themselves.

Some commentary from personal experience of posters on another site:

"I suppose someone could quibble that How are you doing? and Have a nice evening, miss, dont qualify as harassment or aggressions, and only look bad here because they are put into the context of this video with other come-ons that obviously are harassment  but the thing is,those comments happen within a context too, one in which a woman being told Have a nice evening, miss probably has just walked past some Woo-hoos and Hey, beautifuls, and is going to experience them in such a context, as just more of the same shit."

"Id also bet a modest amount of money that none of those guys ever said, Have a nice evening, sir to an unknown man who happened to walk by them."


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2014)

jimturmoy said:


> I'd be curious to see a follow up video where she tells what an appropriate approach would be to her



I got the sense from the video (and I tend to agree to a point) that there is no appropriate approach, as in it's inappropriate to approach a stranger with romantic intent at all unless they've somehow invited it or placed themselves in a context where it would be appropriate (like a bar or something). 

I can understand approaching someone at a party or a bar or something, or introducing yourself to a friend of a friend or something, but why would anyone think it's appropriate to approach a stranger in public who's minding their own business?


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

Also, *what the fvck is wrong with people?*

Actress who highlighted street harassment receives rape threats online - Americas - World - The Independent


----------



## no_dice (Oct 29, 2014)

jimturmoy said:


> I agree with your opinion. I'd be curious to see a follow up video where she tells what an appropriate approach would be to her, and perhaps show a few examples she filmed. There had to be at least one guy in 10 hours of walking that wasn't a total creep like the ones in the video . It's sad that so many men act like that, it makes approaching a women with the intent of actually striking up a conversation so much difficult because they become so jaded.



I know a few hyper defensive girls that complain on facebook every time a guy tries to talk to them. "Douchebag tried to start a conversation with me. Can you believe the nerve? Men disgust me, all they want is to f_u_ck me!"

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely asshole guys out there who cross the line all the time, it just sucks that they make it hard for a decent guy to approach a woman without the armor being up.


----------



## neurosis (Oct 29, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> I was under the impression that this was a "highlight reel," and not *every* single instance of street harassment.
> 
> We live in Brooklyn, and my girlfriend gets constant comments whenever she leaves the apartment, even during the two-block walk to the subway. Unless she's with me, or a male friend, in which case she gets zero.



Next time you two go out together put on the radar for while and you'll notice that they don't speak but they're not blind  They sure don't mind scanning my wife upside down regardless of wether I am or not walking with her. 

I can see how girls get fed up with this. Some of the cases shown look intimidating from that girl's point of view.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 29, 2014)

asher said:


> The solution is guys stop being skeevy assholes.



That's kind of like saying that the best to get to Mars is to get to Mars. It doesn't address _how_ society could make it happen. Not to mention, skeevy guys aren't going to stop being skeevy unless they're given a damn good reason, because for them, being skeevy works.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

Xaios said:


> That's kind of like saying that the best to get to Mars is to get to Mars. It doesn't address _how_ society could make it happen. Not to mention, skeevy guys aren't going to stop being skeevy unless they're given a damn good reason, because for them, being skeevy works.



I mean, yeah.

But can she realistically propose? "Don't let your boys grow up to be shitstains, parents?"

I guess you can pitch better educational systems, but.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 29, 2014)

asher said:


> I mean, yeah.
> 
> But can she realistically propose? "Don't let your boys grow up to be shitstains, parents?"
> 
> I guess you can pitch better educational systems, but.



Wait, did you just secretely agree with me? Because that's exactly what I was saying in my other post: she didn't propose a solution because there _is no easy solution_.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

Yeah, I was going to go back and clarify that I mean this _not_ in the John Roberts "the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," but that the responsibility for this should in no way be on the woman, either to respond differently or attempt to avoid it.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 29, 2014)

There's a difference between wishing someone a nice evening because you genuinely want that person to have a nice evening and wishing them one because one of their physical features (say breasts and ass in this case) appeal to yu and you want to bury your face in said feature.



SpaceDock said:


> If you don't think that every man is being judged by every woman and everyone is judging everyone else for that matter; you re crazy.
> 
> The second anyone sees anyone else, we start judging and assuming. The only diff here is that the men are verbalizing it.


Biggest load of bull in this thread so far. I (and many others cause this ain't all about me) don't go around (sexually) judging people all day and you know why? Because we know people don't like being judged that way and many consider it inappropriate. Instead of pointing at others and making up excuses, realise what you're doing and work on changing your behaviour - there, one for whoever asked for a solution too.



TedEH said:


> Opinions being what they are, I gatta disagree that such a general claim can be made about "the majority" of men. I feel like this whole movement lately to prevent objectification is, instead of making men more considerate of women (which I assume is the goal, and I get that it's well intentioned), is instead vilifying us, and turning any male expression of sexuality into something shameful.
> 
> I'm not defending people who cat-call or otherwise harass anyone, but a lot of the arguments take the tone of "look how terrible all these men are! men are terrible!" and I can't stand behind that kind of statement.


I think you're reading too deep into this one. When someone says "I hate men" it's much like a teenager coming home from high school having a load of boring homework to do and saying "I hate school". It doesn't mean they actually hate men (unless they're radfems in which case they're terrible people anyway ), they're venting. Another thing is that it's simply easy to say "men" instead of going out of their way to say "men except for those who are decent, friendly fellows". In this case just realise that if you feel their message applies to you, think about it and if it does, consider wether you should change something. If you come to the conclusion that it doesn't apply to you, be glad you're not an asshole and continue enjoying life. The "not all men" thing is something I used to do too but nowadays it annoys the hell out of me because it sounds awfully selfish and ignores/obscures the actual point trying to be made.



Xaios said:


> That's kind of like saying that the best to get to Mars is to get to Mars. It doesn't address _how_ society could make it happen. Not to mention, skeevy guys aren't going to stop being skeevy unless they're given a damn good reason, because for them, being skeevy works.


Does it really work as in, does it get them any succes with the ladies or do they continue to do it because no one ever calls them out on it? I think calling out people who display shitty behaviour is a step in the right direction but I agree that changing things, especially behaviour that's been going on for so long, isn't going to happen overnight.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2014)

asher said:


> "I&#8217;d also bet a modest amount of money that none of those guys ever said, &#8220;Have a nice evening, sir&#8221; to an unknown man who happened to walk by them."



I get that the context involved allows you to frame those statements in a certain light, much like I assume a homeless person calling out to me really just wants change or a smoke or something.

I understand that the comments are unwanted, unpleasant because of the context, etc., and I agree that they probably shouldn't act that way. But I still don't see it as always being harassment by default. Inappropriate, sure, but not always harassment. The guys, on the other hand, that follow her around and ask "hey, why won't you talk to me", that's definitely a more serious problem. 

I feel as though the video has made it clear that any unsolicited expression of attraction that comes from a man, even if it's contextual or vaguely implied, is automatically harassment, and that's the part I disagree with. It makes it "wrong" to be attracted to someone if they don't reciprocate the sentiment. 

I admit I'm reading between the lines or reading "too far into it", so to speak, maybe I'm seeing something that really isn't there- but I'm thinking within the context of how everything lately has become a "women's issue". You can't step outside or browse the internet lately without someone telling you that everything you love is oppressing women somehow. Games are sexist, metal is sexist, being a man is sexist, your workplace is sexist, wearing shoes is sexist- and of course, admitting that you're attracted to someone is sexist.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I admit I'm reading between the lines or reading "too far into it", so to speak, *maybe I'm seeing something that really isn't there*- but I'm thinking within the context of how everything lately has become a "women's issue". You can't step outside or browse the internet lately without someone telling you that everything you love is oppressing women somehow. Games are sexist, metal is sexist, being a man is sexist, your workplace is sexist, wearing shoes is sexist- and of course, admitting that you're attracted to someone is sexist.


You are. I also wouldn't say it's a women's issue , it's a social issue. It's often called a women's issue though because let's be honest here - it often targets them. Games aren't sexist per se, games that portray women as scandily clad sexual objects are sexist. Metal isn't sexist per se, metal that sexually objectifies women (beer and titties, ....ing whores whoo!, _etc)_ is sexist. Etcetera. Consider _that_ context.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 29, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> You are. I also wouldn't say it's a women's issue , it's a social issue. It's often called a women's issue though because let's be honest here - it often targets them. Games aren't sexist per se, games that portray women as scandily clad sexual objects are sexist. Metal isn't sexist per se, metal that sexually objectifies women (beer and titties, ....ing whores whoo!, _etc)_ is sexist. Etcetera. Consider _that_ context.



While you're correct, the problem is that many who rant against games and metal, even those that stem from legitimate greivances, try to frame ALL metal and ALL games as being sexist. Kind of like how many fundamentalist Christians try to frame ALL heavy metal as being satanic, despite this being obviously not true. All this does it get people on both sides of an issue whipped into a frothing frenzy.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 29, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> You are.



I think you misread what I said as a denial that sexism exists at all in those places- that's not the case. I agree that there are examples of sexism there, as there are examples anywhere if you look hard enough for them- and this video was certainly looking hard enough- but as you said, those subjects are not in themselves sexist because of those examples, nor are they the source of said sexism.

Edit: It might be worth re-framing my comments as being more a criticism of "most men" mentioned earlier in the thread, as opposed to a criticism of the video. The video does exactly what it claims, demonstrating some examples of what could be called harassment- But I don't believe that the video demonstrates "most men", as was suggested. There are likely more men passed in that walk who said nothing at all, compared to the number of those who acted inappropriately.


----------



## icos211 (Oct 29, 2014)

Some of those were very disrespectful, such as the "Damn!" comments, and the people who followed her or didn't stop when she made it clear she wasn't interested were creepy. However, and this may just be a combination of me being used to the people where I live just being polite and the fact that I have literally never once in my life seen a woman get "catcalled" or even whistled at, but the ones where the men say nothing but "Have a nice evening" don't seem malicious at all. They just seem nice. They don't even seem like come ons, especially considering that as far as we see they aren't usually followed up. And I really can't see wishing someone a pleasant evening carrying any perverted connotations that I don't know about either.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Edit: It might be worth re-framing my comments as being more a criticism of "most men" mentioned earlier in the thread, as opposed to a criticism of the video. The video does exactly what it claims, demonstrating some examples of what could be called harassment- But I don't believe that the video demonstrates "most men", as was suggested. There are likely more men passed in that walk who said nothing at all, compared to the number of those who acted inappropriately.



Sure. Probably lots more. And that's basically irrelevant, because far too many (any) did anyway.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 29, 2014)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the statistics, asher. Especially when the issue is framed as "(all) men" rather than "losers with nothing better to do than cat call and eerily stalk women". There's a big difference there.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 29, 2014)

Basti said:


> I think the simple fact that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.



That line contains neither a fact nor a complete sentence.

You're an idiot.

I suggest that you try learning English before attempting to bash over a quarter of the human population and present your ignorant assumptions as fact.


----------



## vilk (Oct 29, 2014)

Even though I've never done this, I see no inherent problem with doing it. People are sexual objects. It's part of our nature. I think many people who complain about it are just looking for attention. I think that the people who have issue with it on a principle level, that it's not right for us to walk around thinking of people as sexual objects, are overlooking fundamental part of what makes us human beings. Some posters seem to be of the persuasion that the baseline of an interaction being sexually inspired somehow makes it wrong to do... by why would that be? I see a person that makes me feel so aroused that I actually call out at him verbally... how does that affect him? He becomes aware of his attractiveness? Fat chance, people who are good looking know on some level that they are. He feels objectified? Well guess what, we're all objectified in so many ways every day that we might as well just come to terms with it. It's obviously an intrinsic part of how the psyche handles external ... uh ... man, I am not good with words...
I think a lot of you are implying that people should feel angry because some act out in the form of a cat call on their sexual feelings without even knowing the other party, as though that were to somehow make them unwarranted. But again that's ignorant of what we are. 
I think most of the reasons why someone would object to this practice are founded in puritanical societal pressures/ programming telling us to feel uncomfortable. 
I guess that doesn't change how it affects people though... hm...


I only wish that everyone did this to everyone they found attractive all the time. What a world that would be, with everyone walking around constantly telling each other how hot we are.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 29, 2014)

I feel like guys who do that type of thing are just really insecure and don't understand how to actually attract a potential partner. A lot of guys (usually younger guys) don't know how to treat women, because they have just had these funny feelings towards women since puberty and were never taught how to channel them in a healthy way. I think it's a symptom of the MAN UP, BE A MAN, MEN DON'T SHOW FEELINGS, SEX, male gender roll in our society. It's extremely damaging for the man who has internalized these ideas, and usually irritating for women who just want to go about their business.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

will_shred said:


> I feel like guys who do that type of thing are just really insecure and don't understand how to actually attract a potential partner. A lot of guys (usually younger guys) don't know how to treat women, because they have just had these funny feelings towards women since puberty and were never taught how to channel them in a healthy way. I think it's a symptom of the MAN UP, BE A MAN, MEN DON'T SHOW FEELINGS, SEX, male gender roll in our society. It's extremely damaging for the man who has internalized these ideas, and usually irritating for women who just want to go about their business.



I think a good deal of it is just social or brocode posturing and for the hell of it. I highly doubt that most of them actually expect it to go anywhere.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 29, 2014)

vilk said:


> I only wish that everyone did this to everyone they found attractive all the time. What a world that would be, with everyone walking around constantly telling each other how hot we are.



While your post has merit as a thought experiment, anyone who wasn't particularly attractive (and let's face it, given that the grand majority of people on this forums are metalheads, we either are these people or we sympathize with them on some level (yes, I'm generalizing)) would basically be reminded every hour of every day that they're uggos by the lack of attention. Not exactly a place I'd want to live.


----------



## Randy (Oct 29, 2014)

If there remains any doubt about the creep factor of guys in general, checkout the 'missed connections' on your local craigslist and all will become clear.


----------



## vilk (Oct 29, 2014)

Nahhh, all the uglies would compliment each other. If anything, it would probably help a lot of them to hook up. Yeah, they wouldn't be getting compliments at the rate the hotties are, but they would probably ending up getting more compliments total than they do right now.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 29, 2014)

I really believe that whatever the reason that so many men think it's alright to cat-call or whatever, is a symptom of the underlying sexism ingrained in (much) of our society. Other symptoms include things like under-representation in government, pregnancy discrimination, ect. I used to believe that gender rolls were natural, until I learned about different societies where the gender rolls were much more egalitarian than our own, or even matriarchal. Indecently, societies in which women were largely or totally equal to men also had a stable population as opposed to ours which is growing at an unsustainable rate (though, it is slowing).


TL;DR empowering women is the way to population stability.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

Do you have links for your population growth figures...?


----------



## Basti (Oct 29, 2014)

vilk said:


> Even though I've never done this, I see no inherent problem with doing it. People are sexual objects. It's part of our nature. I think many people who complain about it are just looking for attention. I think that the people who have issue with it on a principle level, that it's not right for us to walk around thinking of people as sexual objects, are overlooking fundamental part of what makes us human beings. Some posters seem to be of the persuasion that the baseline of an interaction being sexually inspired somehow makes it wrong to do... by why would that be? I see a person that makes me feel so aroused that I actually call out at him verbally... how does that affect him? He becomes aware of his attractiveness? Fat chance, people who are good looking know on some level that they are. He feels objectified? Well guess what, we're all objectified in so many ways every day that we might as well just come to terms with it. It's obviously an intrinsic part of how the psyche handles external ... uh ... man, I am not good with words...
> I think a lot of you are implying that people should feel angry because some act out in the form of a cat call on their sexual feelings without even knowing the other party, as though that were to somehow make them unwarranted. But again that's ignorant of what we are.
> I think most of the reasons why someone would object to this practice are founded in puritanical societal pressures/ programming telling us to feel uncomfortable.
> I guess that doesn't change how it affects people though... hm...
> ...


Following your logic, rape is the highest form of flattery. 

Try again.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 29, 2014)

vilk said:


> Well guess what, we're all objectified in so many ways every day that we might as well just come to terms with it.


Gays will always be victims of homophobia, might just as well come to terms with it. POC will always suffer from racism, might just as well come to terms with it. Capitalism will always screw us in the arse, might as well come to terms with it. Insert deep quote on remaining passive here.



vilk said:


> I think a lot of you are implying that people should feel angry because some act out in the form of a cat call on their sexual feelings without even knowing the other party, as though that were to somehow make them unwarranted. But again that's ignorant of what we are.


I think calling us objects (rather than animals which at least I _somewhat_ understand) and claiming we've not even evolved past treating each other as such is a much larger insult to humanity than the sweeping "most men" statements in this thread.


----------



## vilk (Oct 29, 2014)

Basti said:


> Following your logic, rape is the highest form of flattery.
> 
> Try again.


----------



## Basti (Oct 29, 2014)

vilk said:


>


Oh. I was sort of hoping you'd explain yourself better but I guess that's as deep as your argument goes?



troyguitar said:


> That line contains neither a fact nor a complete sentence.
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> I suggest that you try learning English before attempting to bash over a quarter of the human population and present your ignorant assumptions as fact.


Fixed the sentence because I'd forgotten the word "is". Thanks for your input. Personally I think I'm doing quite well on that front considering I was born and lived in Italy up until two years ago. But okay.

Ah screw this, you're the idiot.


----------



## asher (Oct 29, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I think calling us objects (rather than animals which at least I _somewhat_ understand) and claiming we've not even evolved past treating each other as such is a much larger insult to humanity than the sweeping "most men" statements in this thread.


 
In fact, that attitude, in large part, causes the damn problem here to begin with.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Oct 29, 2014)

Xaios said:


> While your post has merit as a thought experiment, anyone who wasn't particularly attractive (and let's face it, given that the grand majority of people on this forums are metalheads, we either are these people or we sympathize with them on some level (yes, I'm generalizing)) would basically be reminded every hour of every day that they're uggos by the lack of attention. Not exactly a place I'd want to live.



Umm?


----------



## 7stg (Oct 29, 2014)

Republicans again remind me to never vote Republican if only there was a reasonable alternative. They don't get it, see nothing wrong with it, even saying that she should be grateful.

From republican news
https://www.facebook.com/WNDNews

Trey Rozelle Maybe show a little restraint and dress like a dignified woman who walks hand-in-hand with God and this kind of stuff won't happen.
1 Timothy 2:9-10
Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness&#8212;with good works.

María De Los Ángeles im surprised she got any attention...she should be grateful someone noticed her

Victor Curiel Just another feminist "victim" looking to emasculate men. By the looks on her face she probably doesn't even like men...

Christopher Long Who said its wrong to make a comment? Nobody made rude comment or gesture. Nobody said sexual words, body parts or bed words. Liberals wanting freedom of speech gone.

Penny Pack Houston Please? Is this suppose to mean something? She seemed rude to me... I can understand ignoring the wolf calls but the greetings and God bless are just good people and will say it to anyone... What she's suppose to represent pretty woman??? I don't think so... Wasted 10 hours to me

Trudy Wilson Foreigners are more likely to do that

More republican nonsense here 
Woman gets 100 catcalls in 10 hours


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Oct 29, 2014)

Even as an average-looking male, I've received unwanted sexual attention in public NYC areas before. It sucks.

I can't imagine how much it would suck to have to deal with it on a daily basis. I have sympathy for this woman (and all city women).


----------



## flexkill (Oct 29, 2014)

She knows she can't be just walking around with that booty. Women are put on this earth from God to please man. It is only natural for a male show his desire to mate her. Simple laws of nature here at work people.




































































And if any of you ignorant bastards believe any of that shit I just typed above....YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 29, 2014)

Basti said:


> Oh. I was sort of hoping you'd explain yourself better but I guess that's as deep as your argument goes?
> 
> 
> Fixed the sentence because I'd forgotten the word "is". Thanks for your input. Personally I think I'm doing quite well on that front considering I was born and lived in Italy up until two years ago. But okay.
> ...



You don't even have an argument here. You have an unsupported sweeping assertion that the majority of men are not only terrible but incapable of being anything else. You have a hell of a lot more work to do to support your "simple fact" conclusion. Posting one little youtube video is not an argument.

A few assholes in one city is far from sufficient evidence to say *anything *about the majority of men - especially something as extreme as the capabilities of our thought processes.

You're going so far beyond reasonable that I have to wonder what is going on in your head...

What makes you think that not only do most of us not see women as human but that most of us are not even capable of doing so?

What research have you done or read on the capability of the male to see females as human beings?


----------



## BucketheadRules (Oct 29, 2014)

My take on it is that we shouldn't deny ourselves the sexual feelings that are an important part of human nature, but we should ensure that those feelings don't cross the boundaries of basic respect for other human beings. So basically, if you're thinking of catcalling someone, shut your face.


----------



## soliloquy (Oct 29, 2014)

i go both ways on this. on one end, yes, its tawdry of men to try to pickup women in this fashion with cheap pickup/one liners and play the numbers game. its sick, desperate even. 

HOWEVER, i also kinda understand (sympathize even) with men at least putting an effort to talk to someone. now sure, their choice of words may not be the best and it may come off as creepy. 

i mean, who knows, maybe if you put yourself out there, it could lead to something great. is that what most men are doing in that video? no. is it disrespectful to human beings (not just women), YES. 

they can choose better ways to approach them.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Oct 29, 2014)

soliloquy said:


> i go both ways on this. on one end, yes, its tawdry of men to try to pickup women in this fashion with cheap pickup/one liners and play the numbers game. its sick, desperate even.
> 
> HOWEVER, i also kinda understand (sympathize even) with men at least putting an effort to talk to someone. now sure, their choice of words may not be the best and it may come off as creepy.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure approaching them is even the point. It might be slightly less unedifying if that were the case, but I'm pretty sure most of the sad f*cks who do this stuff aren't trying to pick up anyone, or even really trying to talk to them. They're pretty much doing it for shits and giggles.

As you say, it isn't "putting yourself out there", it's just macho posturing bullshit with no real motivation behind it. That's why it's a problem. If they were really making an effort (misguided or not) to start a conversation or express a genuine interest, I dare say it wouldn't be as big an issue for most women.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 29, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I think you misread what I said as a denial that sexism exists at all in those places- that's not the case. I agree that there are examples of sexism there, as there are examples anywhere if you look hard enough for them- and this video was certainly looking hard enough- but as you said, those subjects are not in themselves sexist because of those examples, nor are they the source of said sexism.
> 
> Edit: It might be worth re-framing my comments as being more a criticism of "most men" mentioned earlier in the thread, as opposed to a criticism of the video. The video does exactly what it claims, demonstrating some examples of what could be called harassment- But I don't believe that the video demonstrates "most men", as was suggested. There are likely more men passed in that walk who said nothing at all, compared to the number of those who acted inappropriately.



I've only skimmed this thread up until this point, and figure I'll just address this and move on. No one can make the claim using "most men." What you _can_ say is that enough men are scary about how they act that it needs to be brought to attention and dealt with. You've obviously never had someone come onto you uncomfortably hard and unwarranted, and then have them proceed to belittle you after you turn them down.

Sexism is very much prominent in both video games and music/metal in general. Be it the objectification of women in rap videos, or Sarah Longfield disabling comments on her videos because people kept spouting sexist nonsense. (hell, look up any girl playing any kind of metal and I dare you to find one where the vast majority of comments don't mention her gender in some way or another.) In video games, it's near impossible to find a character that hasn't been overly sexualized. 

I'll flat out say it, being made uncomfortable by overbearing men is a daily thing. Just walking up to the store will usually get a few comments from people driving by, and it needs to be dealt with. Whether it's most men or not makes zero difference, as it is still common enough where it is very much uncomfortable.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 30, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You don't even have an argument here. You have an unsupported sweeping assertion that the majority of men are not only terrible but incapable of being anything else. You have a hell of a lot more work to do to support your "simple fact" conclusion. Posting one little youtube video is not an argument.
> 
> A few assholes in one city is far from sufficient evidence to say *anything *about the majority of men - especially something as extreme as the capabilities of our thought processes.
> 
> ...


You'd be very naive to believe it's just a low number of men in just one city though. 

Concerning the rest of your post I refer you to the one above by Chokey.


----------



## neurosis (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> I've only skimmed this thread up until this point, and figure I'll just address this and move on. No one can make the claim using "most men." What you _can_ say is that enough men are scary about how they act that it needs to be brought to attention and dealt with. You've obviously never had someone come onto you uncomfortably hard and unwarranted, and then have them proceed to belittle you after you turn them down.
> 
> Sexism is very much prominent in both video games and music/metal in general. Be it the objectification of women in rap videos, or Sarah Longfield disabling comments on her videos because people kept spouting sexist nonsense. (hell, look up any girl playing any kind of metal and I dare you to find one where the vast majority of comments don't mention her gender in some way or another.) In video games, it's near impossible to find a character that hasn't been overly sexualized.
> 
> I'll flat out say it, being made uncomfortable by overbearing men is a daily thing. Just walking up to the store will usually get a few comments from people driving by, and it needs to be dealt with. Whether it's most men or not makes zero difference, as it is still common enough where it is very much uncomfortable.



While I agree with almost everything here, I think this over-sexualization in media causes only collateral damage. While most people will travel (so to speak) to the craziest scenarios possible in any kind of entertainment, or art for that matter, the dynamics inherent in that scenario remain a part of that scenario. I think common sense goes a long way and mostly people do a good job in understanding and handling all of these abstractions. So the impact of these things (games, music, etc...) is relative. 

This stuff is only an issue when people fall back onto it in absence of real role models. All these guys that yell at you and make you uncomfortable are just lost. Mind you, I can't justify what they do. But they probably grew up under the impression that that's what you do and god knows where they picked it up, but it's certain for me that no mom, sister, aunt was there to hit them over the head in time. 

I think more than objectification this whole thing comes more from a particular misunderstanding of social and sexual dynamics and maybe it'd be helpful to show kids from the get go that none of this stuff is so important and that being nice goes a long way


----------



## Basti (Oct 30, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> You don't even have an argument here. You have an unsupported sweeping assertion that the majority of men are not only terrible but incapable of being anything else. You have a hell of a lot more work to do to support your "simple fact" conclusion. Posting one little youtube video is not an argument.
> 
> A few assholes in one city is far from sufficient evidence to say *anything *about the majority of men - especially something as extreme as the capabilities of our thought processes.
> 
> ...



While you're actually making some valid points here and yes, I did exaggerate quite a lot in my original post, the way you have incessantly tried to attack me on a personal level shuts out any possibility of my holding a civilised discussion with you. Maybe you want to go back to yoyr first post in this thread and see how I, someone who doesn't know you, would evaluate someone based on that first impression.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

But that wouldn't sell products on TV. I mean, in the long run, .... yeah, but sexualization of women, and exploiting sexual insecurity in men is normalized. 

That's something that needs brought up as well. Not just the sexualization of women, but the fact that society shoves it down our throats that guys need to be sex god's to have worth. Have glasses, balding head, back hair, puny muscles? Well you're worthless, and you'll never get the chicks! It's this sort of marketing that creates a societal norm to only consider yourself successful when you can attract the babes. So it sort of feeds into people constantly feeling the need to prove themselves. 

As for Vilk's "we should all always act on our sexual urges." We do. The difference between us and cats is that we've developed morals and thus the ability to say "no." There are people who enjoy being hooted at and desired, and they'll respond favorably. But they're much less common than the people who are just trying to go to the store to get milk. Err on the side of caution and assume they're not out for sex, unless context says otherwise.


----------



## Skyblue (Oct 30, 2014)

vilk said:


> Even though I've never done this, I see no inherent problem with doing it. People are sexual objects. It's part of our nature. I think many people who complain about it are just looking for attention. I think that the people who have issue with it on a principle level, that it's not right for us to walk around thinking of people as sexual objects, are overlooking fundamental part of what makes us human beings. Some posters seem to be of the persuasion that the baseline of an interaction being sexually inspired somehow makes it wrong to do... by why would that be? I see a person that makes me feel so aroused that I actually call out at him verbally... how does that affect him? He becomes aware of his attractiveness? Fat chance, people who are good looking know on some level that they are. He feels objectified? Well guess what, we're all objectified in so many ways every day that we might as well just come to terms with it. It's obviously an intrinsic part of how the psyche handles external ... uh ... man, I am not good with words...
> I think a lot of you are implying that people should feel angry because some act out in the form of a cat call on their sexual feelings without even knowing the other party, as though that were to somehow make them unwarranted. But again that's ignorant of what we are.
> I think most of the reasons why someone would object to this practice are founded in puritanical societal pressures/ programming telling us to feel uncomfortable.
> I guess that doesn't change how it affects people though... hm...
> ...



Personally, I don't want people to comment on my looks when I'm walking down the street. There's a time and place for everything. 

I've heard all kinds of comments saying that the people saying "Good evening" and such aren't harassing her, and I rather agree with that. If I were a girl and a random stranger passing by me would say "Good evening" it might still seem weird to me, but it's not really harassment. The so called "cat-calls", on the other hand, are problematic. I won't refer to them as "harassment" as the word is rather problematic by itself these days, but I still think men should not approach stranger girls on the street like that. I know if I were a girl I would hate strangers commenting on my looks and calling things at me when I'm walking on the street. 
If these man see a girl they find attractive walking by, and they wish to approach her, there are ways to do so. Be polite, say hello, try to engage in a conversation. I would guess they still won't have much luck that way but it'll probably be much more pleasant for the girls.


----------



## XEN (Oct 30, 2014)

Is there such a thing as an appropriate approach or greeting for a stranger out and about in town? I don't want to think I'll be harassing someone if I just smile and maybe say, "hi."


----------



## crg123 (Oct 30, 2014)

So. I like funny or die's version... It's a video

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Man from FOD News


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> You've obviously never had someone come onto you uncomfortably hard and unwarranted, and then have them proceed to belittle you after you turn them down.



I have had exactly that happen before- not all the scary people in the world are men (or white or strait for that matter). The difference is that I don't use that instance as a precedent to pre-judge other women. There are all types in the world.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I have had exactly that happen before- not all the scary people in the world are men (or white or strait for that matter). The difference is that I don't use that instance as a precedent to pre-judge other women. There are all types in the world.



How often does it happen to you? And I never said it didn't happen outside just straight white men. I've had women, both white and of color, step over bounds with me. 

I promise you, it's much more common with males in general. Daily, in fact, as being a manly man is encouraged. It's normalized. I also don't pre-judge, as I don't say "that guy over there is a douche because guys in the past have been aggressively uncomfortable with me, therefore he's going to do the same." I do however get sickened after the fact and wish society wouldn't normalize the behavior by saying there's nothing wrong. It's come a long way from what it was, but we have a ways to go yet.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> How often does it happen to you?
> ...
> I promise you, it's much more common with males in general.



I worked at a place for two years where it was roughly a weekly occurrence (sometimes more) that I'd run into this one lady who had no sense of personal boundaries and harassed a ton of the men there. It gets shrugged off of course, "because, hey, men like being hit on right?" There was a guy there who acted similarly and he was fired for it.

Personal experience would suggest to me that men and women are equally guilty of causing uncomfortable situations, but men are the only ones who get reported about or called out for it.

YMMV


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

XEN said:


> Is there such a thing as an appropriate approach or greeting for a stranger out and about in town? I don't want to think I'll be harassing someone if I just smile and maybe say, "hi."



Body language plays a roll. A "hi" while ass glancing or with a wink (or even more subtle things) is not okay. A simple "hello" or "good morning" with brief eye contact is normal. Basically, if it's really just a simple "hi," you're not in the wrong, regardless of how someone on the receiving end feels.


----------



## asher (Oct 30, 2014)

Ted, that's just the one lady who did it regularly though?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I worked at a place for two years where it was roughly a weekly occurrence (sometimes more) that I'd run into this one lady who had no sense of personal boundaries and harassed a ton of the men there. It gets shrugged off of course, "because, hey, men like being hit on right?" There was a guy there who acted similarly and he was fired for it.
> 
> Personal experience would suggest to me that men and women are equally guilty of causing uncomfortable situations, but men are the only ones who get reported about or called out for it.
> 
> YMMV



Did you report her or did everyone feel they'd lose man points for doing so? And that's still one woman as opposed to a different one 5 times a day. Not that that's okay. I don't think it's okay to shun men for reporting sexual harassment. That is in fact part of the problem.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 30, 2014)

My wife was actually recently grabbed on the arm on her way to work by some rather large black man (not that color makes a difference, it's a descriptor in the story). She was walking to the bus and he was walking towards her in the other direction, and just as he got along side of her he grabbed her arm and said something like, "Hey mama". She pulled away hard and yelled "Get off me!!!" and kept walking. He didn't follow or say/do anything else but you can imagine how angered and alarmed I was to hear this. She knows my nature and was hesitant to tell me figuring I might "look" for this guy.

Most of the people doing the cat-calling are ill-mannered d-bags that don't seem to exude any qualifying factors of "upstanding citizen" and that's not really going to change anytime soon. Like with most other current issues the fix requires several societal improvements. Raising one's kids to be respectful and well mannered, getting a decent education, etc are all important to curbing this sort of behaviour.


Rev.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

asher said:


> Ted, that's just the one lady who did it regularly though?



It was only one that happened to me, but I'm not one that often attracts that kind of attention.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I worked at a place for two years where it was roughly a weekly occurrence (sometimes more) that I'd run into this one lady who had no sense of personal boundaries and harassed a ton of the men there.



I used to work at a store here in Manhattan when I was much younger. There was this beefy security guard young woman who would sexually harass me by saying the most vulgar disgusting sh*i*t. I'd just tell her flat out how nasty she's being and just keep my distance. Eventually said said some other nasty thing she wanted to "do to me" (I mean this was hardcore sh*i*t she would say) and I'd had it. I went and reported her, told management this had been going on for some time and that I was sick of it. She was fired on the spot.


Rev.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> And that's still one woman as opposed to a different one 5 times a day.



I don't honestly believe that the average woman is harassed by 5 men per day. If they are, then yeh, the world's sh*ttier than I thought, but I've not seen it.



Chokey Chicken said:


> That is in fact part of the problem.



Agreed.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> My wife was actually recently grabbed on the arm on her way to work by some rather large black man (not that color makes a difference, it's a descriptor in the story). She was walking to the bus and he was walking towards her in the other direction, and just as he got along side of her he grabbed her arm and said something like, "Hey mama". She pulled away hard and yelled "Get off me!!!" and kept walking. He didn't follow or say/do anything else but you can imagine how angered and alarmed I was to hear this. She knows my nature and was hesitant to tell me figuring I might "look" for this guy.
> 
> Most of the people doing the cat-calling are ill-mannered d-bags that don't seem to exude any qualifying factors of "upstanding citizen" and that's not really going to change anytime soon. Like with most other current issues the fix requires several societal improvements. Raising one's kids to be respectful and well mannered, getting a decent education, etc are all important to curbing this sort of behaviour.
> 
> ...



You're right that it won't drastically change soon but look back to the 40s and 50s to see how far it's come. It'll only continue getting better, but only if people actively pursue a fix. Hell, look at racism for more proof. It's not nearly perfect, but it's leaps and bounds better than it was not that long ago.


----------



## Skyblue (Oct 30, 2014)

XEN said:


> Is there such a thing as an appropriate approach or greeting for a stranger out and about in town? I don't want to think I'll be harassing someone if I just smile and maybe say, "hi."



I definitely think there is. All you need to do is approach the person and say hello or good evening, etc, be polite. Some people might still find your behavior unusual, some people might still call that harassment (I don't think it is, as long as it's done politely calmly) but I'd say that's an appropriate approach to a stranger.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 30, 2014)

XEN said:


> Is there such a thing as an appropriate approach or greeting for a stranger out and about in town? I don't want to think I'll be harassing someone if I just smile and maybe say, "hi."


If someone's body language implies they're not open to it, don't. If you think they might be open to conversation, be friendly and don't do what the guys in the video did - randomly blurting it out once she's walked far away enough to have had a good at her ass. 

As for the not all men/women do it too nonsense:
https://storify.com/trredskies/not-all-men-defense-explained
Several solid paragraphs in here too:
Not all men: How discussing women&rsquo;s issues gets derailed.
This obviously doesn't just apply to catcalling but the behaviour in general.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I don't honestly believe that the average woman is harassed by 5 men per day. If they are, then yeh, the world's sh*ttier than I thought, but I've not seen it.



Typically ~once a day, occasionally none, occasionally more than 3. I live in a small dead town and it happens frequently, if I go to Providence or Boston, it's much worse and I don't feel comfortable walking alone. Jury duty was a nightmare for me.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> You're right that it won't drastically change soon but look back to the 40s and 50s to see how far it's come. It'll only continue getting better, but only if people actively pursue a fix. Hell, look at racism for more proof. It's not nearly perfect, but it's leaps and bounds better than it was not that long ago.



I completely agree. I wasn't intending to sound as if I was implying we shouldn't pursue a fix or that things won't get better, of course they will. Just was saying it's not going to happen "anytime soon" as IMO the fixes are to raise children to be more respectful to others (elders, opposite sex, same sex, different races, disabled persons, etc) as well as education. See, women can band together and shout at the top of their lungs how much they hate this type of male behaviour but I still don't think it's going to stop Joey Boombatz from yelling, "Yo sexy!! What's your name baby?". 

I guess my point in all this is that I think these days of the internet our younger generation (I'm 40) has this mentality that via the aid of a campaign on the internet they're instantly going to enact change. I just feel it's a bit disillusioned. Of course that's not saying don't try, every little bit helps. It's just going to take a while.


Rev.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> As for the not all men/women do it too nonsense:
> https://storify.com/trredskies/not-all-men-defense-explained
> Several solid paragraphs in here too:
> Not all men: How discussing women&rsquo;s issues gets derailed.
> This obviously doesn't just apply to catcalling but the behaviour in general.



Claiming that our perspective doesn't contribute to the conversation also doesn't contribute to the conversation. Why is it ok to talk about women being harassed, but it's not ok to talk about men being harassed?


----------



## Cabinet (Oct 30, 2014)

This video missed the target. They filmed mostly blacks and latinos. That doesn't say much about men, just blacks and latinos.


----------



## asher (Oct 30, 2014)

Cabinet said:


> This video missed the target. They filmed mostly blacks and latinos. That doesn't say much about men, just blacks and latinos.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> I completely agree. I wasn't intending to sound as if I was implying we shouldn't pursue a fix or that things won't get better, of course they will. Just was saying it's not going to happen "anytime soon" as IMO the fixes are to raise children to be more respectful to others (elders, opposite sex, same sex, different races, disabled persons, etc) as well as education. See, women can band together and shout at the top of their lungs how much they hate this type of male behaviour but I still don't think it's going to stop Joey Boombatz from yelling, "Yo sexy!! What's your name baby?".
> 
> I guess my point in all this is that I think these days of the internet our younger generation (I'm 40) has this mentality that via the aid of a campaign on the internet they're instantly going to enact change. I just feel it's a bit disillusioned. Of course that's not saying don't try, every little bit helps. It's just going to take a while.
> 
> ...



Thing is, without people shouting from the rooftops, nobody realizes that somethings wrong. If nobody complains about the thorn that they personally can't reach to pull out, then no one realizes there's a problem to fix. Do you honestly think those guys hooting at women are gonna raise kids to respect women? I agree though, and change is happening. It still is worth shouting from the rooftops though. 

It goes both ways too. Men do have problems that arise from this whole mess. Like I said, the fact that reporting rape or sexual harassment as a man is so stigmatized is a problem. 

My wording may be poor but I promise I'm not holding any ill will towards you. I think we're pretty much on the same page, if not entirely so.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Claiming that our perspective doesn't contribute to the conversation also doesn't contribute to the conversation. Why is it ok to talk about women being harassed, but it's not ok to talk about men being harassed?


I never claimed or at least intended to claim your perspective doesn't contribute, I claimed that complaining about "not all men" and shifting the blame (see Cabinet) is counterproductive. What I think would be productive is admitting there's a problem and working on solving it. 

This doesn't mean it's never done by women and you're not allowed to call them out when they do.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 30, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I claimed that complaining about "not all men" and shifting the blame (see Cabinet) is counterproductive.



While it may not help with the issue of harassment, pointing and saying "men are the problem" without any other qualifiers will only breed resentment in men who have no part in this abuse, because it makes them feel like they're being unfairly targeted for being part of a problem that they have nothing to do with in the first place. If I had a girlfriend who cheated on me and went on to publicly state "all women are sluts," I'm not exactly going to invoke sympathy from the grand majority of women who aren't promiscuous, even if I have been legitimately wronged.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

Xaios said:


> While it may not help with the issue of harassment, pointing and saying "men are the problem" without any other qualifiers will only breed resentment in men who have no part in this abuse, because it makes them feel like they're being unfairly targeted for being part of a problem that they have nothing to do with in the first place. If I had a girlfriend who cheated on me and went on to publicly state "all women are sluts," I'm not exactly going to invoke sympathy from the grand majority of women who aren't promiscuous, even if I have been legitimately wronged.



Men aren't the problem. Asher, UnderTheSign and Rev are not part of the problem. What is part of the problem is trying to sweep gender equality aside as a non issue because you feel personally attacked. The folks I mentioned above aren't going to breed hate. They're a part of the solution. They are (admittedly I'm assuming) Men. Men in general are not the problem, but ones not admitting things are askew are.


----------



## Cabinet (Oct 30, 2014)

I am not shifting the blame onto skin color or ethnicity. I think the video targeted selected areas of New York where she knew she would get the most harassment for the sake of the video.
Why is she not walking through predominantly white neighborhoods? Why didn't they bother to even show white people? The video claims she got 100+ of these comments of all backgrounds but only 2 were actually shown.

They either edited them out or they simply had no occurrences with white men to show. Either way, it shows that they should have done a retake of this video because now all they have on camera is, what looks like, racial profiling.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> What is part of the problem is trying to sweep gender equality aside as a non issue because you feel personally attacked.



Admitting that you shouldn't blame something on all of men as a whole is not sweeping gender equality aside. Addressing women's issues and denying that men suffer from those same issues, does sweep equality aside.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Admitting that you shouldn't blame something on all of men as a whole is not sweeping gender equality aside. Addressing women's issues and denying that men suffer from those same issues, does sweep equality aside.



Nobody here has said men as a whole. Words are being put in mouths. If they did and I missed it, they're wrong.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 30, 2014)

Multiple people including Chokey and me have elaborated on the "not all men thing" multiple times. I'll say it one last time - if you feel the statements made regarding sexist behaviour apply to you and it irks you, good. Maybe give it a good long think. If you feel it doesn't apply to you, you have no reason to get your panties all in a bunch. 

Instead of complaining not all men are part of the problem, admit that a lot of men are and that we, being the decent men we are, can help change this by actively calling it out instead of making it all about us again.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> What is part of the problem is trying to sweep gender equality aside as a non issue because you feel personally attacked.



No one is sweeping gender equality aside. Women being harassed is an issue. Women claiming (all) men harass women is an issue. They are not the same issue, however. Don't conflate the two - they are separate issues and addressing the latter in no way diminishes the former. They are not mutually exclusive.




TedEH said:


> Admitting that you shouldn't blame something on all of men as a whole is not sweeping gender equality aside. Addressing women's issues and denying that men suffer from those same issues, does sweep equality aside.


 
This.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I'll say it one last time - if you feel the statements made regarding sexist behaviour apply to you and it irks you, good. Maybe give it a good long think. If you feel it doesn't apply to you, you have no reason to get your panties all in a bunch.



Even in cases where this doesn't apply, being lumped in with the dregs of society is still insulting. It's no better than calling all women bitches, hos or sluts. We know that isn't the case, so in both cases we need to state what we mean.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

With that said, you can call attention to one problem at a time. Men do have issues that negatively effect their lives. I'm fairly sure I already mentioned it, but things like rape and sexual harassment are something that effects men, albeit differently. Fighting for women's rights does not dismiss any other issues. But refusing to even say that "wow, there really is a problem" without saying "yeah, well..." is silly. 

I've admitted that men have issues that need dealt with, why can't you acknowledge the same?

Edit: ninja'd. Though I never once dismissed male problems, and I'm fairly certain I'm one of only like two people who even gave an example of them. Almost everyone else us just saying "not all men are bad, it's stupid to even talk about because I'M not a bad guy."

Edit edit: Nobody is being lumped anywhere they don't belong. Male or female, you acknowledge a problem or you don't. If you dont, then you're wrong and likely part of the problem.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> With that said, you can call attention to one problem at a time. Men do have issues that negatively effect their lives. I'm fairly sure I already mentioned it, but things like rape and sexual harassment are something that effects men, albeit differently. Fighting for women's rights does not dismiss any other issues. But refusing to even say that "wow, there really is a problem" without saying "yeah, well..." is silly.
> 
> I've admitted that men have issues that need dealt with, why can't you acknowledge the same?



I've already admitted that. Why can't you read?   J/K

What you fail to see is that when bringing up the issue of women being harassed, there is a tendency to bring up the other issue (all) men being guilty. So its fair to discuss just the issue of women being harasses so long as you leave the other issue out of the discussion. When you open that door, expect others to address this issue, too.

It's all in how we present the issue. If we police ourselves so as not to open the second issue, we won't see people mention it.


EDIT: Ninja'd too.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

Agreed, though I hopped in after men's rights/issues were brought up so I aint guilty of opening that door. 


To be clear on my position, both are issues that need talking about. (Technically it is one subject, which is gender equality.)


----------



## TedEH (Oct 30, 2014)

> With that said, you can call attention to one problem at a time.



The problem is that you can't. You can't say "lets talk about making the sexes/genders equal", and then leave one of them out of the equation. The discussion of one prompts the other. 

I'll reiterate that the whole men-topic comes from the idea that this discussion of what was a women's issue, prompted a comment such as this:



Basti said:


> I think the simple fact that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> The problem is that you can't.



Yes you can, just like you can talk about racism without bringing up the more privileged whites.


----------



## larry (Oct 30, 2014)

Basti said:


> .... What the hell is going on in people's minds?
> [/OPINION]



I can't speak of other people, but I can be very honest about what's going on in my mind as a guy. I see an attractive woman and instantly want to mate. period. woman in the harassment video is no exception: she's attractive, voluptuous and I wanna bury it deep.. but growing up, I have been taught to suppress that and have learned a million ways to rationalize it away or label it negatively. I think as a species we're supposed to meet up, fvck and make more of us. I can't prove it, though... 

I myself have no real way to tell if a female is receptive to me, outside of making contact. more often than not I have to 'probe' and start conversation. I have to smile, make nice and even go out. even after all of that, I'm still so oblivious to their 'signals' that they either initiate or give up and walk away. if I carried on in life, as I comfortably do, keeping to myself and responding with the usual outward neutrality that I've become great at, I'd never meet any of the girls I'd had relationships with. I think every heterosexual female wants male attention and would even prefer to be ravaged beyond all control, but only by their preferred mate.

I'm also part of the "DAMN!!" crowd. I usually keep it to myself, but if you're attentive you'll see the reaction.


----------



## McKay (Oct 30, 2014)

will_shred said:


> it's a symptom of the MAN UP, BE A MAN, MEN DON'T SHOW FEELINGS, SEX, male gender roll in our society. It's extremely damaging for the man who has internalized these ideas, and usually irritating for women who just want to go about their business



Anybody who thinks being "manly" leaves someone ill-prepared to deal with emotional issues has a fundamental and caricatured misunderstanding of masculinity. Being "a man" as traditionally understood isn't some burden. The values it implies liberate you and I'd rather see everybody included in that, regardless of their gender identity, than it be vilified as problematic.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Agreed, though I hopped in after men's rights/issues were brought up so I aint guilty of opening that door.


 
My comments were intended in a general sense, not directed to you, specifically.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> Anybody who thinks being "manly" leaves someone ill-prepared to deal with emotional issues has a fundamental and caricatured misunderstanding of masculinity. Being "a man" as traditionally understood isn't some burden. The values it implies liberate you and I'd rather see everybody included in that, regardless of their gender identity, than it be vilified as problematic.



I don't think the issue is being a man or masculine, but rather the "macho", chauvinistic attitude some guys have that takes masculinity over the top.


----------



## asher (Oct 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> Anybody who thinks being "manly" leaves someone ill-prepared to deal with emotional issues has a fundamental and caricatured misunderstanding of masculinity. Being "a man" as traditionally understood isn't some burden. The values it implies liberate you and I'd rather see everybody included in that, regardless of their gender identity, than it be vilified as problematic.



Going with the social/culture norms of "manly" and "womanly", yes they absolutely are problems. You may have different definitions of these terms, but that doesn't really matter.


----------



## McKay (Oct 30, 2014)

asher said:


> Going with the social/culture norms of "manly" and "womanly", yes they absolutely are problems. You may have different definitions of these terms, but that doesn't really matter.



Why are they problems? Is stoicism a problem? Is compassion a problem? Since they're associated with men and women respectively.



> I don't think the issue is being a man or masculine, but rather the "macho", chauvinistic attitude some guys have that takes masculinity over the top.



I have no argument with that, it's obviously true.


----------



## asher (Oct 30, 2014)

McKay said:


> Why are they problems? Is stoicism a problem? Is compassion a problem? Since they're associated with men and women respectively.



When the culture expects them to pick one side of the chromosomal line and stay there, yes. Because everyone does not match those labels.


----------



## McKay (Oct 30, 2014)

asher said:


> When the culture expects them to pick one side of the chromosomal line and stay there, yes. Because everyone does not match those labels.



What does that have to do with my point? I'm defending values*, not the assignment of them to a particular gender. I've already made it clear that I'd rather see gender boundaries broken down regarding this. Values don't become inherently bad because they're counter-productively limited to one gender by a culture. It's the segregation of helpful values that becomes the problem, not the values themselves.

*The post I quoted originally was suggesting that "being a man" (referring to the values that represents) is what's dangerous, rather than our culture limiting said values to one gender. The values of traditional masculinity have merit. Attacking them is misplaced anger, the real danger is telling women they can't be stoic, self-sufficient etc. They should be universal values.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 30, 2014)

TedEH said:


> The problem is that you can't. You can't say "lets talk about making the sexes/genders equal", and then leave one of them out of the equation. The discussion of one prompts the other.



This. And it's not just men who feel slighted that can't either.

Just yesterday, a female friend of mine (and a woman for whom my respect is absolute as she is simply one of the most self-possessed, well-spoken and all around best people I know) made a comment on Facebook about how she was rattled after a guy started harassing her at a bar. It was pretty clear that this guy was one of the subhuman scum that I dislike sharing a gender with, rather than an average male.

A friend of said friend, commenting on her post, proceeded to go on a bit of a tirade against men. Let me be absolutely clear so that there's no ambiguity, she opened this diatribe with the sentence "*Men are the worst.*" She then stated in another comment (and I'm copying this verbatim, so spelling and punctuation problems are not my fault) "*Your not uptight you just have an air of professionalism and confidence about you, and men are afraid of strong women... This ass hole was just pissed off because your no cookie cutter woman willing to cut the crust off his sandwich and he got intimidated!*"

Just yesterday. Thanks for throwing literally all men under the bus.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 30, 2014)

Xaios said:


> "*Men are the worst.*" She then stated in another comment (and I'm copying this verbatim, so spelling and punctuation problems are not my fault) "*Your not uptight you just have an air of professionalism and confidence about you, and men are afraid of strong women... This ass hole was just pissed off because your no cookie cutter woman willing to cut the crust off his sandwich and he got intimidated!*"


 
I think a big part of this is in how we present the commentary. If that response had been "That guy is the worst. You're not uptight, he's just a douche nozzle" then it would refer to specific behavior by specific individual(s) and it wouldn't necessarily open up the gender equality issue.

If I were attacked by some crazy guy who happened to be black while walking out to my truck in the parking at work one day, there are two ways I can present that information. If I mention that the guy is black, or even worse the dreaded n word, you can best your ass that it will open up a discussion on race rather than just my having been attacked. But if I just refer to him as a crazy guy, that discussion can be avoided.

Likewise, I not a particularly ugly guy, so I've been hit on by women many times, and even stalked. If I were to open up a discussion about this, especially the stalking, by stating that "women are crazy" you can bet that it will open up a gender discussion, whereas if I simply stated "Man, this one girl is crazy - she used to stalk me, bla bla bla", that's a completely different discussion because it refers to a specific situation and individual.

If we just think about how we present our comments, a lot of these issues can be avoided. (And yes, I do realize that asking people to think before talking/posting will be asking too much of some people ).


----------



## UnderTheSign (Oct 30, 2014)

I think in that case it's like the example I gave earlier on - kid comes home from school, loads of homework, says "man, I hate school" and his friends all nod in agreement.

Seriously, we're STILL bickering over this instead of the actual issue at hand. I'm outta here.


----------



## Edika (Oct 30, 2014)

If people are really serious about changing mentalities about objectification of human beings, be it male, female or transgender, they should first consider their support on a system that has as a main goal to actually objectify human beings and use them as commodities and tools to reach certain goals. The societies mentioned that have more gender equal roles would be considered by most people in the US in a couple of derogatory ways popularized in the 50's and 70's.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 31, 2014)

My takeaway from this: Never talk to women, ever .

Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but still grounded in reality for me. I'm already socially awkward and have a hard time approaching and talking to _anybody_, let alone an attractive woman. I'd never cat-call or say something perverse, but knowing that even a smile and a "good evening" could get me posted on a hidden-cam video for harassing someone is just about enough to bury whatever confidence I might be able to build up.

Only talk to a woman when you know she's receptive? Well shit, I _never_ know when that is . Time to die alone!


----------



## troyguitar (Oct 31, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> My takeaway from this: Never talk to women, ever .
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but still grounded in reality for me. I'm already socially awkward and have a hard time approaching and talking to _anybody_, let alone an attractive woman. I'd never cat-call or say something perverse, but knowing that even a smile and a "good evening" could get me posted on a hidden-cam video for harassing someone is just about enough to bury whatever confidence I might be able to build up.
> 
> Only talk to a woman when you know she's receptive? Well shit, I _never_ know when that is . Time to die alone!



It's worse than that. You can't even look at them. It's best to just pretend that they don't even exist.


----------



## axxessdenied (Oct 31, 2014)

If you want to make a fair generalization of men from that video. Most of those guys looked like losers who can't keep a job or still in school and haven't learned how to function properly in society yet.

You won't see too many normal looking guys who actually have something positive to contribute pulling shit like this.

#1 reason is lack of education.


----------



## XEN (Oct 31, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> My takeaway from this: Never talk to women, ever .
> 
> Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but still grounded in reality for me. I'm already socially awkward and have a hard time approaching and talking to _anybody_, let alone an attractive woman. I'd never cat-call or say something perverse, but knowing that even a smile and a "good evening" could get me posted on a hidden-cam video for harassing someone is just about enough to bury whatever confidence I might be able to build up.
> 
> Only talk to a woman when you know she's receptive? Well shit, I _never_ know when that is . Time to die alone!


Amen to all of that.
On the flip side, a very attractive woman at my workplace, with whom I have never spoken, smiled and said hi to me yesterday as we passed in the hall. It was clearly more than just a passing greeting. I didn't know how to react.


----------



## vilk (Oct 31, 2014)

Edika said:


> a system that has as a main goal to actually objectify human beings and use them as commodities and tools to reach certain goals



This! This is what I was trying to say before.


----------



## splinter8451 (Oct 31, 2014)

XEN said:


> Amen to all of that.
> On the flip side, a very attractive woman at my workplace, with whom I have never spoken, smiled and said hi to me yesterday as we passed in the hall. It was clearly more than just a passing greeting. I didn't know how to react.



Obviously you should start documenting these instances and compile them into a viral internet video  

The only other thing I have to say about this video: That woman was perfect bait for black/Mexican men to cat call. Thick white woman? Come on  literally stepping right into a stereotype. I know she can't help how she looks, I just think it is funny. 

In my experience, as a dude, it is almost always the no life f*cks (regardless of race) who sit around on their porches all day long that do the harassment. They are either too dumb to understand what they are doing or never learned any better; and they will yell at anyone who passes by. I am a 6'3 skinny white guy and I have gotten all kinds of comments from these dudes (and women) especially when I was in college and used to walk places around town. I can't count the number of times someone has yelled "get this kid a sandwich" to me  even been called a "faggot" multiple times because of wearing tight pants. But I laugh it off because there is absolutely no reason to confront anyone for their stupid comments, I just keep on living how I want. If anything I will just look at them and say "Thanks pal  "


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Oct 31, 2014)

People take things way too seriously


----------



## axxessdenied (Oct 31, 2014)

I think an appropriate response to these types of people that need to "cat call" or yell at others randomly should be "Get an education!".


----------



## abandonist (Oct 31, 2014)

Lot of saviors in this piece.


----------



## gorthul (Nov 1, 2014)

IMO this video is nothing but feminism elitist bullshit.
The video creator is asking for nothing different but to stop every single communication between men and women that are not taking place in a flirtchat or a club.
Yes, the dude silently following for 5 minutes is pretty creepy and it is pretty likely that he is some random loser, but most of these other incidents shown are pretty negligible. 
Seriously, what the hell is sexist about "Hey", "Hi" or "Have a nice day!"? If those people would grab her body or ask her directly for sex, that would be sexist.

In my country most males, who are not complete douches, already have a terrible self-esteem towards women. Should they now throw their last bit of it aboard just to "safe" that poor and helpless girl from "harassment"? Most of the women can use their own mouth if they are annoyed by somebody and usually there will always be someone who can help if things escalate

BTW, the end of the video is pretty hilarious, too. Raising donations to stop men talking to women on the street? Seriously, what the hell?!


----------



## DarkWolfXV (Nov 1, 2014)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## vilk (Nov 2, 2014)

dude, the of the guys in the bottom picture, I think the ones on the left and the right are the same person or identical twins


----------



## GoldDragon (Nov 2, 2014)

I think this is exaggerating the problem to gain youtube hits. Look at this statistically.

If you walk around in primarily working class district of NY during the day, most of the foot traffic will be men, so probably 90% of people on streets were men.

In 10 minutes of walking, she will likely encounter 100+ people. Lets say 100 men. So in an hour of walking she encounters ~600 men. Times 10 = 6000 men.

And she apparently got 200 comments. This is probably an exaggeration because she is looking for attention. But lets assume she actually got 200 unwanted comments. 200/6000 = 3% of men. There is a larger % of the population (5%) incarcerated for crimes, just to put this in perspective. 

Furthermore, she is large chested, wearing tight jeans, and is not so hot to be unapproachable. AND she is walking in primarily male dominated areas where there are few women to distract attention, and very likely any other women are dressed more modestly (to avoid such attention).

So, yeah, the lowest segment of society, in the most agressive/populous city, when meeting a large chested/tightly dressed girl, who is not so hot to be unapproachable, 3% of men (apparently) made a comment.

What % of those comments were intended to be lewd? My guess is that the majority of them were intended to be complimentary. What these men didn't realize was the sheer number of compliments she received because she was walking around for ten hours.

*
What this really underscores is how easy it is for women to get dates.* All an average/homely looking girl needs to do for attention is get large breast implants and biology will do all the work.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 2, 2014)

Model Pranksters (male models who do pranks and upload them to youtube) made a video response to the original video where one of their male models silently walked around NYC and got just as much "harassment" from BOTH females and males. It's plain as day that this isn't an issue only for females and has nothing to do with which sex someone is.


----------



## SpaceDock (Nov 2, 2014)

^ seriously, I wouldn't give her my attention 

Sadly it does seem like it catcallers were mostly black/Latino and I feel like that is just part of the culture in inner cities like that. 

I really feel like that chubby b was trying to make herself feel better about here muffin top by gettin some compliments from the low hanging fruit. J/k


----------



## CudBucket (Nov 2, 2014)

vilk said:


> reproduction is the biological meaning of life



What?


----------



## kamello (Nov 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Model Pranksters (male models who do pranks and upload them to youtube) made a video response to the original video where one of their male models silently walked around NYC and got just as much "harassment" from BOTH females and males. It's plain as day that this isn't an issue only for females and has nothing to do with which sex someone is.





found it 


and also found this one


----------



## will_shred (Nov 3, 2014)

asher said:


> Do you have links for your population growth figures...?



Sorry I took so long to get back to you 

My source is actually a book. Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture by Thom Hartmann. 



> The Iroquois Confederacy was, at the time of the American Revolution, the oldest and must enduring representative democracy in the known world. The Iroquois were largely population stable, like many Native American tribes that had achieved stability. Numerous ethnographers and commentators of the time note how these population-stable tribes typically considered having a baby more than once every seven years in "bad form" and looked upon the baby breeding women among the colonists with concern or amazement. Reports of the technology of Native American birth control run from various herbs to the use of animal intestines as condoms, to herbal or other source suppositories to alter vaginal pH


----------



## asher (Nov 3, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Sorry I took so long to get back to you
> 
> My source is actually a book. Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture by Thom Hartmann.



I meant re: "unsustainable" population growth.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 3, 2014)

asher said:


> I meant re: "unsustainable" population growth.



Well, I can't really speak for the first world considering birth rates are pretty much down across the boards in developed nations. However in many places where women may have access to modern medicine, yet are still severely socially unequal to men. Such as the wealthy middle eastern countries, where family sizes are still massive despite having there being access to family planning.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 3, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I think this is exaggerating the problem to gain youtube hits. Look at this statistically.
> 
> If you walk around in primarily working class district of NY during the day, most of the foot traffic will be men, so probably 90% of people on streets were men.
> 
> ...


I think you meant to post this in the Onion thread.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 3, 2014)

Wow, this thread went exactly where I expected it would


----------



## flint757 (Nov 3, 2014)

The first half of this thread went exactly the way I thought it would. I'm a feminist and even I agree with the other side that causes with a feminist banner always seem to take this all or nothing, with us or against us, mindset. This is not a two sided coin, it is multifaceted. You've got scum who will genuinely harass people on the streets, people who think doing so is completely okay, people who don't think it's okay, but that the issue is either exaggerated or would be equally as taken advantage of if it were a pretty boy rather than a pretty girl (when editing out the lion-share of the video not exactly hard to do), people who think that women face the issue more than men, but it is a problem that plagues all of society, people who think women are the only victims, or the only ones who matter, and that men need to be stopped, and then people who apparently think even a simple salutation of any sort is somehow harassment nuts. In this thread quite a few of you are pitting the last two against the rest as if each of those positions are somehow equal when they are not.

I have no doubt that women likely get approached more than men, but then again that's how the whole dating ritual has been for centuries. Women don't _typically_ approach men, so unless we are expecting no one to date ever I don't see how this issue can be swiftly resolved. On the flip side when women do approach men in the same manner being discussed is it not also harassment by the same logic? Scum behave like scum so I'm not particularly surprised by some of their behavior, but that's just the way the blue collar world is. Where I work most everyone is also monstrously racist too. Can't change people who are that far gone so throwing the average Joe in with the group is just dishonest. How do you exactly expect to change people who don't give a shit about being PC or what X person thinks of them?


----------



## Edika (Nov 3, 2014)

Not being a woman and not being around men that tend to harass women I've rarely encountered this phenomenon and it usually was from people universally considered losers. I've had a lot of female friends during university that were attractive and not one ever told me about incidents of catcalling and harassment. Most of them were moderately attractive to rather attractive but would usually be normally dressed. Girls that would attract this kind of attention and probably badgered from morons constantly were the ones that were dressed all out all the time. I mean girls being dressed like going to a night club 24/7. Now I agree that every one has a right to be dressed the way they want but even the most hardcore feminist would agree that this is excessive.

What I have seen more though that is a troubling is men making comments about women between them, the so called male bonding/company. If you want to know about objectification of women/girls just listen to 4-5 guys talk and comment about them. That silent mentality that might turn to an inner dialogue for a man is troubling.

Now after all that I found this video pointless. It seemed kind of pretentious and I will agree with other posters that it showed some racial profiling. The most creepy comment (aside form the guy walking for 5 minutes next to her) was the pimp-y looking guy that said "I just saw a thousand dollars". Now this comment can be considered really demeaning and offensive.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 3, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I think this is exaggerating the problem to gain youtube hits. Look at this statistically.



Well, yeah, and? 



GoldDragon said:


> If you walk around in primarily working class district of NY during the day, most of the foot traffic will be men, so probably 90% of people on streets were men.
> 
> In 10 minutes of walking, she will likely encounter 100+ people. Lets say 100 men. So in an hour of walking she encounters ~600 men. Times 10 = 6000 men.
> 
> And she apparently got 200 comments. This is probably an exaggeration because she is looking for attention. But lets assume she actually got 200 unwanted comments. 200/6000 = 3% of men. There is a larger % of the population (5%) incarcerated for crimes, just to put this in perspective.



I think you're missing the point here. Also, contact with 600 people in an hour? Come on.



GoldDragon said:


> *Furthermore, she is large chested, wearing tight jeans, and is not so hot to be unapproachable.* AND she is walking in primarily male dominated areas where there are few women to distract attention, and very likely any other women are dressed more modestly (to avoid such attention).



Yeah, you've missed the point 



GoldDragon said:


> What % of those comments were intended to be lewd? My guess is that the majority of them were intended to be complimentary. What these men didn't realize was the sheer number of compliments she received because she was walking around for ten hours.



Intended to be complimentary? Doubtful, unless you have an odd definition for what a compliment is. "Dayum" and other forms of cat calling fall pretty far from your standard compliment. This applies to both sexes but your average woman deals with it far more than the average man; cat calling is fvcking creepy. It is done with the intent to show someone you find them physically attractive and with the knowledge you probably won't have an actual conversation with them. It is harassment.

The random "hey" or "how are you doing?" shouted/said to her throughout the video is harder to figure out for multiple reasons, but the biggest tell is body language-which we can't really discern from this video. Still, the point is women have to deal with being approached constantly and it's a facet of their lives men don't totally experience or understand. This video (and I don't think its very well done) is just trying to show what her experience is-which is similar to that of a lot of women in dense urban areas. 



GoldDragon said:


> *
> What this really underscores is how easy it is for women to get dates.* All an average/homely looking girl needs to do for attention is get large breast implants and biology will do all the work.



Well this comment explains everything. You're clearly a piece of shit 



Edika said:


> Most of them were moderately attractive to rather attractive but would usually be normally dressed. Girls that would attract this kind of attention and probably badgered from morons constantly were the ones that were dressed all out all the time. I mean girls being dressed like going to a night club 24/7. Now I agree that every one has a right to be dressed the way they want but even the most hardcore feminist would agree that this is excessive.



This sort of logic is part of the problem. Yes, it will never be a perfect world, but you shouldn't have to worry about possible sexual harassment when you're trying to pick out what you're wearing in the morning 



Edika said:


> What I have seen more though that is a troubling is men making comments about women between them, the so called male bonding/company. If you want to know about objectification of women/girls just listen to 4-5 guys talk and comment about them. That silent mentality that might turn to an inner dialogue for a man is troubling.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 3, 2014)

Edika said:


> Now I agree that every one has a right to be dressed the way they want but even the most hardcore feminist would agree that this is excessive.


No they wouldn't.

Also now that feminism got mentioned, found this one  _All the missing white guys from the street harassment video can be found in the comments section by going Ctrl+F - feminazi_


----------



## tedtan (Nov 3, 2014)

Edika said:


> What I have seen more though that is a troubling is men making comments about women between them, the so called male bonding/company. If you want to know about objectification of women/girls just listen to 4-5 guys talk and comment about them.



Women do the same thing amongst themselves when talking about men. And they can be just as dirty, too (I've heard these conversation before first hand, so I'm speaking from experience).


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 3, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Women do the same thing amongst themselves when talking about men. And they can be just as dirty, too (I've heard these conversation before first hand, so I'm speaking from experience).



Exactly. Women are just more concerned with concealing it than men.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 3, 2014)

OMG this is so disturbing. There are so many problems with this video:

1) She didn't turn around for the camera.

2) She didn't turn around for the camera.

3) She didn't turn around for the camera.

4) She didn't turn around for the camera.

I went looking and damn, this bird is so careful not to turn around for any pic or vid. I did my best for y'all.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 4, 2014)

So we went from "not all men do this" to simply turning it back on women. What's next, saying "black people are racist too! They once called me cracker!"?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 4, 2014)

I get what you're saying, but do you really mean to imply that ONLY white people are racist and that ONLY white people should have to stop being racist. Racism, much like sexism, is wrong no matter who is perpetuating it. 

I don't harass anyone, am raising my black niece (not that it matters, but apparently since I'm white I'm racist), my circle is filled with a wide variety of different people and even heritage speaking my family was never a part of anything to do with racism or slavery as my family immigrated here during the greatest generation era. I get that there is a problem and we have to work together to fix it, but that shouldn't include making entire groups of people out as victims or perpetrators based on largely arbitrary attributes. We need to call people out WHEN they behave in a racist or sexist manner and come to the aid of those being harassed, but to just make out entire groups of people out as any -ism does a disservice to everyone involved and only serves to perpetuate hate towards people when not everyone is even involved in the activity being discussed. Yes, I know, 'nobody' is intentionally implying that everyone in X group does these things, but it creates that mindset nonetheless when people attach arbitrary labels to a cause.

What's the solution here anyhow? Saying guys just do this kind of stuff and therefore we need to fix men isn't a rational nor accurate solution. Absolutely call people out on their bullshit and educate them, but just attacking everyone is pointless. The only thing we can do is make the behaviors deemed inappropriate a big no-no and that's it. That is how we have solved a lot of problems over the last few decades. We've diminished homophobia and racism by making derogatory slurs unacceptable behavior and created consequences for violating those rules (we set boundaries is my main point). We didn't diminish it by simply saying white people are racist and straight people are homophobes.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> OMG this is so disturbing. There are so many problems with this video:
> 
> 1) She didn't turn around for the camera.
> 
> ...



WTF does that have to do with anything? Having a large/nice/whatever ass is an invitation?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> So we went from "not all men do this" to simply turning it back on women. What's next, saying "black people are racist too! They once called me cracker!"?



If this is directed to my previous post, I'm not turning anything around against women. Quite the contrary.

Humans have survived and prospered as a species, despite frequent wars wherein we try to wipe one another off the face of the planet, through sexual reproduction. Part of that process is visual attraction to members of the opposite sex (before you accuse me of making anti-gay statements, note that sexual relations with members of the same gender do not lead to reproduction). Humans are also social creatures with a tendency to talk to one another. As such, discussing members of the opposite sex, and what we might like to do with them, is a normal part of human behavior, regardless of gender. Men and women both do this and its not an inherently bad thing.

I do understand how it can be perceived as a negative when taken out of context. That's how ideas like "all men only think of women as sexual objects" that we've seen in this thread come about. But make no mistake - that is taking a normal part of human sexuality so far out of context that it means something different than it did in context, and might as well be a complete fabrication.

Going a bit further, I've noticed a tendency here in these threads for many to view men as bad, sexist, etc. and women as pure, asexual beings who need men to come help them. This reminds me of an old nursery rhyme my grandmother used to tell my sister when we were children, something to the effect of "boys are made of snails and frogs and puppy dog tails and girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice". While that made for a nice children's' story, it is far from an accurate depiction of the real world.

In fact, that is a very sexist way of thinking, not only against men but also against the women. Women are, first and foremost...




























































people, with all the attendant issues associated therewith. They have strengths and weaknesses, just like men. They have accomplishments and failures, just like men. They have individual personalities and individual preferences, just like men. They are imperfect and make mistakes, just like men. They are sexual beings, just like men. Etc., etc.

So putting women on a pedestal and pretending that they are perfect and in need of men (or anyone else) to come save them from men is sexist because it represents an imaginary depiction of women rather than who they actually are. As always, we are in a better position to address the issues when we are able to view them accurately and with an open mind rather than going in with preconceived ideas and self delusion that lead us in the wrong direction.

I have nothing against women and am all for equality. Just remember that feminism is about equality regardless of gender, not about making men out to be "bad".


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> WTF does that have to do with anything? Having a large/nice/whatever ass is an invitation?








Actually, it has everything to do with this. A ***PAWG*** in skin-tight clothes to show off her large/nice/whatever FAT ass, 29" waist, THICK thighs and DD tits while walking around Harlem is most definitely an invitation attention whoring. (The captain save-a-hoes behind the vid even apologized for the "unintended racial bias." ) Hold on, lemme find some crocodile tears for her "plight"...






...never mind.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

Jesus Christ dude. Go tell someone her skirt was too short so she was asking for it while you're at it.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 4, 2014)

Actually, having "features" like that, that you damn well know you have, and then purposefully wearing skin-tight clothing to show off those features and then walking around parts of town like that would, in regular situations, be an "invitation" (not really, more like an attempt at looking for attention of the opposite sex).

Those clothes are specifically designed to attract people, as skin tight clothing is definitely not the most comfortable thing to walk around in for 10 hours. That's like getting breast implants and then complaining that everyone's looking at your tits. Wearing pants that define your (big) ass and then complaining when people look at your ass (especially men) is childish.

Had she been a very dirty, overweight woman wearing trashy, loose fitting clothing, she probably wouldn't have gotten so much "harassment". Again, this isn't an issue of which sex a person is. People of both genders get harassment like this, it's just most people aren't beautiful women who walk around in predominantly poor neighborhoods in NYC with skin tight clothes on.

Is it okay that she received SOME harassment? No. But 80% of that shit was just dudes saying "How you doing today?" or just saying hi, trying to start a conversation. All I get from this video is "Guys shouldn't talk to women", like Tim said earlier in this thread.

This video proved nothing besides the fact that men like beautiful women.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 4, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Is it okay that she received SOME harassment? No. But 80% of that shit was just dudes saying "How you doing today?" or just saying hi, trying to start a conversation. All I get from this video is "Guys shouldn't talk to women", like Tim said earlier in this thread.


Tims statement however was a joke. Please tell me how yelling "hey beautiful, how ya doing?" while someone is already a good couple of steps past you is any way of initiating conversation.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 4, 2014)

Edit: double post, didn't realise I had two tabs open


I'm not putting women on a pedestal nor do I think they're all pure and innocent. What I'm saying is I think women are effected by sexism on a larger scale than men, just like how PoC are by racism on a much larger scale than white people (if whites are in any way at all victims of racism in the western world). I also don't think discussing your favourite masturbatory fantasy/mating ritual in public is in any way part of our nature but even if it is that doesn't make sexual objectification and catcalling any less bad. 

As for the racism thing - racism towards PoC is part of and the result of hundreds of years of oppression and still hurtful to this day whereas 'racism' towards whites (often illustrated by people whining about being called cracker or whatever) just hurts someone's fragile ego.

Never did I or anyone else blame men or whites as a whole. What WAS said was "too much" and "enough" people do certain things to call them problematic. Why that was misunderstood for multiple pages and resulted in the earlier mentioned butthurt I don't know but it goes to show people care more about themselves than whatever issue is being discussed.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 4, 2014)

You don't seem to be understanding that she purposefully dressed like that and purposefully walked through those types of neighborhoods to SPECIFICALLY get that kind of reaction. Do you know what would have happened if she walked around my neighborhood in those clothes? Nothing. Nobody would have said anything to her.

That's like saying "Men are so violent, I bet this guy right here will punch me" and then you walk up to the guy and slap him in the back of the head, of course he's going to punch you. Just like if you dress in a manner that is attractive to the opposite sex, surprise surprise, it's going to attract the opposite sex.

Nobody groped her in this video, nobody attempted to rape her, nobody even touched her. Literally all this video is, if you take sexism out of the matter, is saying "Talking to women you don't know is bad". Like people saying "Hey beautiful" or "How you doing today?" is harassment. I lived in South Georgia in the Bible Belt and got called derogatory homosexual names when I walked around, all because I had long hair. I moved to North Georgia, people don't say anything to me.

That's like putting your hand on a hot frying pan and then saying the frying pan was wrong for being hot.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Actually, it has everything to do with this. A ***PAWG*** in skin-tight clothes to show off her large/nice/whatever FAT ass, 29" waist, THICK thighs and DD tits while walking around Harlem is most definitely an invitation attention whoring. (The captain save-a-hoes behind the vid even apologized for the "unintended racial bias." ) Hold on, lemme find some crocodile tears for her "plight"...
> 
> 
> ...never mind.



While I agree that there are issues with the way the video was made (filming during the day when most people are working, some degree of racial profiling, dressing for attention), it in no way diminishes the harassment caught on video. It merely limits its applicability to a subset of men, rather than being something representative of all men.

Also, hold yourself to a higher standard - there's no reason to be childish and insulting.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

I see girls wearing yoga pants/tights/whatever _all the damn time_. They're not doing it for attention (mostly), they're doing it because they're comfortable.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I'm not putting women on a pedestal nor do I think they're all pure and innocent. What I'm saying is I think women are effected by sexism on a larger scale than men, just like how PoC are by racism on a much larger scale than white people (if whites are in any way at all victims of racism in the western world).



What I responded to was your comment: "So we went from "not all men do this" to simply turning it back on women."

While I don't disagree that this is an issue that affects women more than men (specifically in terms of frequency), I don't read your comment as stating that in any way.




UnderTheSign said:


> I also don't think discussing your favourite masturbatory fantasy/mating ritual in public is in any way part of our nature but even if it is that doesn't make sexual objectification and catcalling any less bad.



Leave the straw man arguments at home. My comment was clearly in relation to talking amongst friends, not harassment and catcalling.




UnderTheSign said:


> Never did I or anyone else blame men or whites as a whole. What WAS said was "too much" and "enough" people do certain things to call them problematic. Why that was misunderstood for multiple pages and resulted in the earlier mentioned butthurt I don't know but it goes to show people care more about themselves than whatever issue is being discussed.



Most everyone has agreed that this is an issue. Yet for some reason, you pretend that the ONLY issue in this thread is women being harassed when the OP clearly states: 

Basti said:


> I think the simple fact is that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.


So I'm not sure why you keep pretending that there is only a single issue presented in this thread (women's rights). There is clearly more to it than that from the very first post.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Literally all this video is, if you take sexism out of the matter, is saying "Talking to women you don't know is bad"



I mean, most things are pretty dumb when you take their main point, argument, theme, or assumption out.

Literally, all basketball is, is some guys running around throwing a ball at a hoop. Literally, all Memento is, is a guy with memory problems. Etc.

Also, a good portion of the video is in Midtown and SoHo. Definitely not the ghettos.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 4, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> Edit: double post, didn't realise I had two tabs open
> 
> 
> I'm not putting women on a pedestal nor do I think they're all pure and innocent. What I'm saying is I think women are effected by sexism on a larger scale than men, just like how PoC are by racism on a much larger scale than white people (if whites are in any way at all victims of racism in the western world). I also don't think discussing your favourite masturbatory fantasy/mating ritual in public is in any way part of our nature but even if it is that doesn't make sexual objectification and catcalling any less bad.
> ...



You can't fix xxx-ism with xxx-ism. That's trading one problem for another, using two wrongs to make a right. You have to accept the fact that there are pigs out there that don't really want equality, they just want to become the farmer. 

We either move forward in unison, or we can keep having this argument year after year.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

tedtan said:


> [/INDENT]So I'm not sure why you keep pretending that there is only a single issue presented in this thread (women's rights). There is clearly more to it than that from the very first post.



You do realize that, because a large majority of men might have problems with this, and Western society has been male dominated for a very, very long time, many of these objectification issues have been coded into rules (women's suffrage! interracial marriage! health care and body control!) and social norms, *this attitude has directly given rise to women's rights* as an issue?

edit:



GizmoGardens said:


> We either move forward in unison, or we can keep having this argument year after year.



So how do we move forward when the attitudes that are a problem try bitterly to deflect the issue?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> You do realize that, because a large majority of men might have problems with this, and Western society has been male dominated for a very, very long time, many of these objectification issues have been coded into rules (women's suffrage! interracial marriage! health care and body control!) and social norms, *this attitude has directly given rise to women's rights* as an issue?



I don't follow you. On the one hand, you're stating the obvious. But on the other hand, you direct it to me as if I can't comprehend it. What are you getting at? And spell it out for me like I'm dumb. 

Regardless, how does that in any way negate what I posted as being an issue, too? And since it was brought up in this thread, why is this an inappropriate place to discuss it?




asher said:


> So how do we move forward when the attitudes that are a problem try bitterly to deflect the issue?



There is no instant cure. It will take time and education for some of the old mentalities to die off (literally and figuratively). In the meantime, by all means keep pushing the agenda. Just don't downplay or ignore other issues that come up in that process or you're no better than the ones you are fighting against, putting yourself above others.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

I may be getting posts crossed. It seems like you were trying to say "this isn't only women's rights", though I'm not sure what else it actually can be - the attitudes of guys? I wouldn't separate them. Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 4, 2014)

> So how do we move forward when the attitudes that are a problem try bitterly to deflect the issue?



I think a lot of bitterness comes the first part of my comment. There are people out there that are trying to fix isms by using isms. I can't tell you how many times that ridiculous M&Ms analogy has been made in regards to sexism in America (if 10% of a bowl of M&Ms are poisonous yada yada yada) and it gets praised. That is blatant sexism and I don't think it makes anyone bitter/intimidated/ignorant to not want to be wrongfully shoved into that box. Nobody deserves to be profiled/generalized/discriminated, and no one is wrong for standing up against it... Regardless of prior transgressions by _other_ people. I wasn't put on this Earth to pay for another man's (or woman's) sins. 

*How * do we move forward? If I had the optimum answer to that I wouldn't be talking about on SSO. We all know the goal, the solution is the hard part. Honest education (it's not always honest with all the misleading statistics and fallacious arguments)? Holding individuals accountable for their actions without resorting to generalization? I really don't know, sorry. My personal philosophy is that I can only control my own actions, so I'll make it count. I try to treat everyone I meet with the respect they deserve and I try not to make assumptions about people I don't know. Maybe that's a tiny, even infinitesimal contribution, but there are no strings attached to it. When I have kids, I'm going to encourage them to do the same. Again, that ain't going to solve the worlds problems, but it's my way of pushing ahead.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 4, 2014)

Here's that M&Ms thing (left) and a response to it that I agree with, but I didn't make it and won't take any credit.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

In the OP, Basti stated "I think the simple fact is that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level."

He admits that this is his opinion, but it still presents the issue in the same old "vilifying men" light rather than truly looking for equality for all. And that is what opened the door for the discussions surrounding this separate issue. If these were merely attempts to deflect the calls for equality for women, you'd have a point. But since they were brought up in the OP, they are every bit as open for discussion in this thread as women's rights IMO.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 4, 2014)

> We either move forward in unison, or we can keep having this argument year after year.





asher said:


> So how do we move forward when the attitudes that are a problem try bitterly to deflect the issue?



I understood this to mean that part of moving forward might be admitting that you won't convince everyone, nor do you have to. If that's the case, I don't think it's an unreasonable perspective.


----------



## no_dice (Nov 4, 2014)

I think the aggressiveness of some men when it comes to approaching women comes down to their personal instilled sense of right and wrong and being able to respect someone's boundaries.

I see attractive women all the time, and I think things in my head that would quickly get me labeled as a scumbag if I said them out loud. I keep them in my head where they belong. A lot of people don't have that filter, and will just come right out with "Nice tits!" or "I'd love to show you a good time!"

Not having watched this video, I hear that most of the comments are pretty harmless in and of themselves. The girls I know complaining about it are complaining that the tone and body language speaks to something deeper and more invasive than a simple hello.

It reminds me of a stand up bit from comedian Chelsea Peretti. She said she was walking home, and some guy said, "Hey sweetheart, get home safe!" and she says before that point, she wasn't doubting that she would. 

Men are always going to love looking at attractive women. I don't have the answer to stop the bad ones from being more aggressive than they should, but I don't think villainizing all flirting and "unwanted" conversation with women is the answer.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

My problem with #NotAllMen is that it, effectively, deflects or distracts from the main issue. I really do think *most of the time*, "men are stupid and suck and are pigs" is equivalent to "I hate school!" and "women are crazy!" and etc, where they're not meant to encompass literally every facet. Yes, it's annoying to hear, but by and large it's also pretty easy to overlook, in order to focus on the much more prevalent issue. Which, if worked on, will also make the #NotAll issues smaller...


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> My problem with #NotAllMen is that it, effectively, deflects or distracts from the main issue. I really do think *most of the time*, "men are stupid and suck and are pigs" is equivalent to "I hate school!" and "women are crazy!" and etc, where they're not meant to encompass literally every facet. Yes, it's annoying to hear, but by and large it's also pretty easy to overlook, in order to focus on the much more prevalent issue. Which, if worked on, will also make the #NotAll issues smaller...



I don't disagree that there are people using it for that purpose. It's hard to tell on the surface when someone is deflecting, and when someone is genuinely upset with being generalized/discriminated against. Luckily a lot of the 'deflectors' will follow it up with a sexist comment and effectively drag themselves out into the sunlight. 

That being said, I believe it's necessary to keep the overall goal of equality in focus. Just like you have deflectors, you have zealots who think they can justify discrimination as long as they have a 'good cause'. I don't believe you're one of those people, but I'm sure you'd agree that they exist.


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

Absolutely. I just think that the vast majority of the time, #NotAll[whatever] is a "hey, don't drag me into this shit, I'm not a problem!" response... which isn't productive in any way.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 4, 2014)

GizmoGardens said:


> I think a lot of bitterness comes the first part of my comment. There are people out there that are trying to fix isms by using isms. I can't tell you how many times that ridiculous M&Ms analogy has been made in regards to sexism in America (if 10% of a bowl of M&Ms are poisonous yada yada yada) and it gets praised. That is blatant sexism and I don't think it makes anyone bitter/intimidated/ignorant to not want to be wrongfully shoved into that box. Nobody deserves to be profiled/generalized/discriminated, and no one is wrong for standing up against it... Regardless of prior transgressions by _other_ people. I wasn't put on this Earth to pay for another man's (or woman's) sins.
> 
> *How * do we move forward? If I had the optimum answer to that I wouldn't be talking about on SSO. We all know the goal, the solution is the hard part. Honest education (it's not always honest with all the misleading statistics and fallacious arguments)? Holding individuals accountable for their actions without resorting to generalization? I really don't know, sorry. My personal philosophy is that I can only control my own actions, so I'll make it count. I try to treat everyone I meet with the respect they deserve and I try not to make assumptions about people I don't know. Maybe that's a tiny, even infinitesimal contribution, but there are no strings attached to it. When I have kids, I'm going to encourage them to do the same. Again, that ain't going to solve the worlds problems, but it's my way of pushing ahead.


I do think this is the way to move forward. Educate your kids, educate those around you and call out those around you when they show problematic behaviour.

As for the rest, Asher has already responded more and more elequolently than I can right now so there, I agree with him basically.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> Jesus Christ dude. Go tell someone her skirt was too short so she was asking for it while you're at it.



She wasn't wearing a short skirt, and she wasn't "asking for it," which is some old 4chan-type meme for rape. I.e, she wasn't inviting rape, and no one was even trying to rape her.

Nice try, though. 



tedtan said:


> While I agree that there are issues with the way the video was made (filming during the day when most people are working, some degree of racial profiling, dressing for attention), it in no way diminishes the harassment caught on video.



There was no harassment. Let her file a police report...

"OMG! OMG! OMG! I need to file a report right away!"
"What happened, ma'am?"
"This guy told me to have a nice day. AND I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO TELL ME TO HAVE A NICE DAY! "


----------



## asher (Nov 4, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> She wasn't wearing a short skirt, and she wasn't "asking for it," which is some old 4chan-type meme for rape. I.e, she wasn't inviting rape, and no one was even trying to rape her.
> 
> Nice try, though.



You realize that "she's wearing tight clothing, she's asking for attention and deserves whatever harassment she gets" is *the exact same logic*?

If she doesn't want gawking, it's on her to wear loose baggy clothing that doesn't show off her figure? This is the same line logic also leads to women wearing burkas (when taken to its logical conclusion).

(Also, the short skirt type of comment is, unfortunately, far more pervasive than 4chan).



sevenstringj said:


> There was no harassment. Let her file a police report...



Stuff like "'Hello Miss. Miss? MISS! HEY .... YOU BITCH!'" and etc don't count? Or stalking?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> My problem with #NotAllMen is that it, effectively, deflects or distracts from the main issue. I really do think *most of the time*, "men are stupid and suck and are pigs" is equivalent to "I hate school!" and "women are crazy!" and etc, where they're not meant to encompass literally every facet. Yes, it's annoying to hear, but by and large it's also pretty easy to overlook, in order to focus on the much more prevalent issue. Which, if worked on, will also make the #NotAll issues smaller...



Don't try to marginalize me!   

Seriously, though, I agree that that can be an issue. But in this thread, people weren't making things up to deflect attention away from the issue of women's rights. They were addressing a specific statement in the OP and several others that followed it. Here it is again:


Basti said:


> I think the simple fact is that the *majority* (and I don't think I'm exaggerating) of men are so detached from the opposite sex that they're incapable of seeing them as fellow human beings or treating them as such before judging them on a sexual (as in gender-based) level.


 That's a pretty strong vilification of men, and in this case, we're clearly not just trying to deflect attention away from women's rights, but addressing the vilification issue that was brought up from the beginning of the thread. Given how often threads around here wander off topic, I'm surprised that this has been an issue for people in this thread.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> There was no harassment. Let her file a police report...
> 
> "OMG! OMG! OMG! I need to file a report right away!"
> "What happened, ma'am?"
> "This guy told me to have a nice day. AND I DIDN'T WANT HIM TO TELL ME TO HAVE A NICE DAY! "



There was more there than just the "have a nice day" comment(s).


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 4, 2014)

I guess at least I'm not the worst when it comes to straw men 

Anyone seen this? I don't know who the guy is but the hell is he talking about?


----------



## Edika (Nov 4, 2014)

One main problem is the fact that a necessity to withstand the natural elements has become a secret allure and detachment from the natural physical form. Seeing a naked body is intriguing, exotic and arousing. There might be an abundance of naked photos on the internet and barely clothed people on magazines but it's not the same as actually seeing some one in person naked. That, in combination with the various ways media are promoting the sexualization of women (and men in a lesser extent) has produced certain archetypes and stereotypes on the collective consciousness that is being constantly reinforced. A certain type of clothing, make up and attitude can be linked to a certain type of women that is considered more promiscuous and inviting. Just to be clear I'm not supporting this but this is what is happening, this is the reality we live in so far.
Since no one is perfect, even the most hardcore ideologist, he/she might fight for the right of someone else, in this case women dressing as they'd like without being harassed, they will pass judgement for a few micro seconds. That's not to mean they'll think they are asking for it and so on, just that these women dress in a way that is linked to and main goal is to objectify them sexually. 

I had the opportunity to meet and hang out with a girl that was dressed like she was clubbing 24/7. She was a good person, not the brightest of the bunch, but man did she have issues. To me it was obvious she was trying to be the center of attention but he tried to accomplish it with all the wrong ways and for all the wrong reasons. The comments guys (and girls) would make behind her back were appalling. That wardrobe was combined with a kind a certain kind of attitude and behavior that showed a much less frivolous, mature and intelligent person than what she was. In one of our discussions I suggested that she tried to show more of who she is rather than what she looks like. And yes I suggested that she tone down her wardrobe. You might think that my suggestion was regressive and incorrect but you really can't imagine how she was dressed ALL the time. I mean the skinny tight jeans and revealing top was her comeback after I made that comment, trying to show me a more conservative look.

I agree women can wear what they want and even doll up as much as they want and that doesn't justify harassment. Yes there should be a continuous effort to crush these kind of mentalities. But we don't live in an ideal world, with ideal people in ideal situations and having in the back of our minds that there are some sick motherf_u_ckers out there is also a good preservation skill (for men and women).


----------



## flint757 (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> My problem with #NotAllMen is that it, effectively, deflects or distracts from the main issue. I really do think *most of the time*, "men are stupid and suck and are pigs" is equivalent to "I hate school!" and "women are crazy!" and etc, where they're not meant to encompass literally every facet. Yes, it's annoying to hear, but by and large it's also pretty easy to overlook, in order to focus on the much more prevalent issue. Which, if worked on, will also make the #NotAll issues smaller...



How do you not see the double standard present in this mindset? Replace NotAllMen with NotAllWomen, NotAllGays, NotAllBlacks, NotAllWhatever and you'd likely be in support of them because it is wrong to assume that when X person did something, that reflects negatively on an entire group of largely unrelated people. The issue is, when it is a group considered _'privileged'_ we're supposed to just assume _'they don't really mean everyone even though that's exactly what they said'_, but if the same were said about a minority or _'non-privileged'_ group the same people wouldn't be defending that statement. I've seen it happen in multiple other threads here on this very forum.

I really dislike having to argue from my current position. It incidentally sets me with some people who are indeed being deflective, but I can't in good conscience just go with what a lot of y'all are saying as it is very misguided IMO.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 4, 2014)

asher said:


> My problem with #NotAllMen is that it, effectively, deflects or distracts from the main issue.



I disagree, because to me, it's just as unfair for a man to be treated as a potential threat for no reason as it is for women to feel the need to treat unknown men as potential threats.

My neighbor is a good example, I think: On more than one occasion, some kids have been playing outside when I came home from work. If their mother sees me pull into my parking spot, she calls all the kids inside quickly, as if she thinks I'm going to attack them or something, and once I'm in my apartment, she lets them back out again. She sees my long hair and beard, and that I'm a large guy, and instantly assumes I'm a threat. Maybe she thinks I'm in some kind of biker gang or something, who knows- but anyone who actually knows me can tell you I'm the farthest thing from a threat to anyone.

To her, the issue is "our neighborhoods aren't safe enough from gangs and big guys with beards".
To me, the issue is "not every big guy with a beard is a threat, so you shouldn't assume I'm a bad guy".

I think this is a similar situation:
Some see the issue as "it's not safe for women to walk the streets because any man could be a threat".
Others see the same situation as "men as a whole are not a threat, and I'm equally uncomfortable with being treated as one".

Edit:
To clarify, what I'm saying is that both perspectives are equally valid and legitimate issues that are related- I just feel that denying either perspective blocks the conversation from making progress. Women shouldn't have to feel at risk, and at the same time men shouldn't need to be treated as threats by default. In my mind it's a common goal.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 4, 2014)

tedtan said:


> There was more there than just the "have a nice day" comment(s).



Yeah, the best ones were "am I too ugly for you?" and "wow, I just saw $5000." 

Sorry, but that ain't harassment either.




Now THIS is an outrage!!!!! Poor guy is the VICTIM!!! of this HARASSMENT!!!!!11 every day of his life. I definitely would never wanna trade places with him.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 4, 2014)

At some point, a duo I was part of volunteered to play to raise money for a shelter for battered women. We were turned down because some of the women at the shelter were leery of having men involved. 

i talked about it at the neighborhood hangout for musicians in the neighborhood, and a lot of the women who were playing the benefit felt it was wrong, like saying that we were like the men who had battered these women, or like saying that if blacks had robbed those who were beneficiaries of a crime victims benefit, there shouldn't be blacks performing. 

Part of the administration reconsidered, and part broke away, eventually getting involved with an all-women's commune which would even send male children away once they reached three years old (and the mothers, if they wanted to keep their children.)

I don't hang out with those who insist that every member of a group defined by natural characteristics (sex/race/preferences) have the same outlook.

If it were a group defined by people embracing a philosophy or a religion... then it's harder to say that folks don't remain part of a group which embraces certain views and behaviors. If someone argued that the Ku Klux Klan weren't *all* racist, the fact that the members chose to join such an organization undermines that argument. 

People do have a choice as to whether or not to remain part of a bigoted organization.

Straight people should leave homophobic churches.

I'm not going to argue that the people in this video didn't do what they did. I'm also not going to argue that it's wrong for women to fear for their safety based on behavior like that caught on video. However, if they generalize to all men, then it's okay for pepole to call them bigots.


----------



## 7stg (Nov 5, 2014)

Here is one from New Zealand. Not very eventful.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

7stg said:


> Here is one from New Zealand. Not very eventful



Saw this on facebook and immediately wondered how long it would take to be posted here. Wasn't disappointed.


----------



## Edika (Nov 5, 2014)

Two quite articles on the video itself and not the message:

https://medium.com/message/that-cat...is-such-an-exciting-topic-really-32223ac9c9e8

Catcalling video: Hollaback's look at street harassment in NYC edited out the white guys.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Sorry, but that ain't harassment either.



Perhaps you don't understand what harassment is. The first definition from Merriam-Websters is "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way". And some of the comments and behaviors in that video do constitute harassment.

Why do you continue to justify this type of behavior? Do you participate in it yourself? If so, perhaps you could provide some insight into for those of us without your insider knowledge, maybe open our eyes so to speak.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

I will come back later today/tonight/tomorrow with a fuller response with my issues with #NotAll[group] reactions, but I'm too scattered to get it cohesive right now.

I think previously I haven't really been explaining myself well enough.

ted: not sure it's worth trying to engage him any more if he's going to be so willfully ignorant.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> ted: not sure it's worth trying to engage him any more if he's going to be so willfully ignorant.



Not meaning to engage in the sense of arguing, just offering another point of view.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Not meaning to engage in the sense of arguing, just offering another point of view.



sevenstringj? I'm just going to be surprised if he actually has substantive answers to tedtan's questions.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

He's referring to sevstingj who is trolling, not you TedEH.

EDIT: Ninja'd


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> He's referring to sevstingj who is trolling, not you TedEH.



Yep. Sorry for the confusion


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

My bad, I misunderstood.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

The implementation of the definition of harassment is totally subjective, as it's obvious that quite a few people don't believe phrases like "How are you doing" or "Good morning, beautiful" are harassing phrases. By definition, no single man harassed her aside from the guy who followed her asking why she wouldn't talk to him.

I truly don't understand how people can think "Good morning" or "how are you doing" should be considered harassment. I must say those two phrases to upward of 2 or 3 dozen people daily, including females, and I don't want to harass anyone. If I pay a passing woman a compliment and say "man, you're beautiful", it doesn't mean I want to sleep with her. It's a compliment, not harassment.

I still stand by what I think this video represents. The woman wasn't groped, raped, molested, or sexually assaulted in any way, and only two guys (out of supposedly over 200) went beyond just saying one thing to her and then forgetting about it when she didn't respond. All this video portrays is that men who make any general (even kind) remark to a woman they don't know are pigs. One of their examples of "harassment" was literally "Hi, how you doing, beautiful?". That's basically a conversation starter for a girl you're interested in. If that's harassment, how should I approach a female I'm interested in? Say "Hi, before I say ANYTHING please know I don't want to harass you. How are you doing."?


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

> By definition...



I think the trick is to put aside the semantics, and consider that while those things may not be harassment per se, they're still potentially inappropriate and make the person on the receiving end feel uncomfortable.

I mean that in the sense that I don't say "hey, good looking" to someone for being attractive in much the same way that I wouldn't say "bro do you even lift" to a fat guy. It shows a lack of empathy, and makes the recipient uncomfortable. It's neither invited nor warranted, and I think that should be the only real message there.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I mean that in the sense that I don't say "hey, good looking" to someone for being attractive in much the same way that I wouldn't say "bro do you even lift" to a fat guy. It shows a lack of empathy, and makes the recipient uncomfortable. It's neither invited nor warranted, and I think that should be the only real message there.


 
I'm not sure I understand your linking of those two phrases. One is inadvertantly making fun of someone's weight (and originated from a meme), and the other is a greeting mixed with a compliment. How are they at all the same?

Today's society is truly ass backward if they think greetings and compliments should be unwarrented, uninvited and should be considered harassment. 

Harassment is a very broad term. I, for one, wouldn't consider a stranger calling me handsome as harassment. It also wouldn't make me uncomfortable. I have long hair and take great care of it, and when females tell me my hair is beautiful and start touching it, I'm fine with that compliment. I don't think "these weirdos are going to rape me", I think "man, my hair must look good".

If recieving compliments makes you uncomfortable or you consider that harassment, you're going to have quite an upsetting and lonely social/love life.

Coming from a normal guy who respects people of all genders/race/nationality/sexual orientation/etc., all I saw in that video was 90% compliments, 5% greetings, 5% wierd guys (actual harassment), and 100% ignorance from the creators of the video.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

I'll just quote this bit for you to read again. It's not simply about greeting someone or giving them a genuine compliment and it'd be ignorant if you think otherwise.



no_dice said:


> Not having watched this video, I hear that most of the comments are pretty harmless in and of themselves. The girls I know complaining about it are complaining that the tone and body language speaks to something deeper and more invasive than a simple hello.
> 
> It reminds me of a stand up bit from comedian Chelsea Peretti. She said she was walking home, and some guy said, "Hey sweetheart, get home safe!" and she says before that point, she wasn't doubting that she would.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I'm not sure I understand your linking of those two phrases...How are they at all the same?



It was literally the next sentence:


> It shows a lack of empathy, and makes the recipient uncomfortable.



An uninvited/unwarranted compliment is just as inappropriate as an insult, depending on context.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I truly don't understand how people can think "Good morning" or "how are you doing" should be considered harassment. I must say those two phrases to upward of 2 or 3 dozen people daily, including females, and I don't want to harass anyone. If I pay a passing woman a compliment and say "man, you're beautiful", it doesn't mean I want to sleep with her. It's a compliment, not harassment..



I go for a 6 mile run every morning and probably end up saying "good morning" to 2 dozen people every morning before most of you are even awake for the day yet. But I'm saying good morning to other people who are out running, walking their dog, etc., regardless of whether they are men, women, old ladies, etc. I'm most definitely not sitting on the side of the street yelling "how YOU doing', BEUATIFUL!" at women after they are already 20 feet past me. Likewise, I hold the door open for people who are entering my building at work the same time I am - men, women, young, old, in wheelchairs, whatever - not just the young ladies because I want to watch their ass while they walk by.

You have to take context (and as mentioned previously, body language) into account in determining how your message will be received.




loqtrall said:


> One of their examples of "harassment" was literally "Hi, how you doing, beautiful?". That's basically a conversation starter for a girl you're interested in. If that's harassment, how should I approach a female I'm interested in?



"Hi, how are you doing, beautiful" is not a compliment when said to a lady in a bar next to you, and its even worse when said to someone who is already 10 to 20 feet past you while walking down the street.

If you want to compliment a lady, you don't call her beautiful, dear, honey etc. and you certainly don't say "DAAAAAMN!" or "nice ass!".

You say "that dress looks good on you". Or "I like those shoes. Are they new?". Or perhaps, "Your hair is different; I like what you've done with it."

If you want to meet someone, you say "Hi, I'm Logtrall. I noticed you sitting here and had to come over and introduce myself. You are?" and take it from there.

In short, treat women like the humans that they are instead of mere objects.

Trust me, once you translate your compliment into language that ladies appreciate (e.g., normal conversation), your attention will be much better received than any cheesy pick up line or faux macho posturing.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I'm not sure I understand your linking of those two phrases. One is inadvertantly making fun of someone's weight (and originated from a meme), and the other is a greeting mixed with a compliment. How are they at all the same?
> 
> Today's society is truly ass backward if they think greetings and compliments should be unwarrented, uninvited and should be considered harassment.



Don't be naive. Even though I've been one of the more vocal #NotAllMen (God, I hate how every point of view has to have some sort of hashtag in these arguments) proponents in this argument, I'm not so obtuse as to not believe that the overwhelming majority of the guys in this video who are saying "hi beautiful" or "how you doing" or even "have a nice day" really mean "I would put my penis in your vagina given the opportunity, just wanted you to know." While I sincerely believe that the grand majority of men don't treat women like this, the people who were highlighted in this video *abso....inglutely* were making sexual advances, even if they were thinly veiled.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 5, 2014)

Xaios said:


> (God, I hate how every point of view has to have some sort of hashtag in these arguments)



Preach!


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

Xaios said:


> God, I hate how every point of view has to have some sort of hashtag in these arguments



Some days I think twitter is the source of all the worlds modern problems.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

Xaios said:


> While I sincerely believe that the grand majority of men don't treat women like this, the people who were highlighted in this video *abso....inglutely* were making sexual advances, even if they were thinly veiled.



Are you sure we're watching the same video? The video posted in the OP?

I'm just going to repeat, verbatim, some things that were said in that video that the creators of the video, as well as yourself, are calling harassment and "sexual advances":

"How are you doing today?"
"Have a nice day"
"Hello"
"Smile!"
"What's up, girl, how are you doing?"
"How are you this morning?"
"Have a nice evening"
"Hello, good morning"
"God bless you, have a good day, alright?"
"How you doing?" (no emphasis on "YOU")
"How you doing, good?" (again, no emphasis on "YOU")
"Hey, look it there, I just saw a thousand dollars" (even comically a compliment)
"How you doing" (again, for the 3rd time)

By the way this video was recorded, edited, and made, it makes it seem like asking a passing by woman how they're doing is harassment. I still can't fathom how any of you could consider ANY of that harassment. You keep saying "it's context" "context", what context? They didn't say "How are you doing?" and then chase her down the street trying to talk to her. Only two of the guys in the video actually followed her, the rest were either walking in the opposite direction and continued to do so after she walked by, or were sitting down and continued to do so as she walked by.

You guys seriously think these were sexual advances? Where in the mortal .... do you guys live, if you consider these phrases to be harassment if said to a passing by woman? Also, 20 feet? really? Most of the shit said to her wasn't even said before she passed the guy saying it, let alone 10 feet after she passed them.

I literally can not understand how most of the shit said in this video is considered harassment. Sure, there were a few guys that said "DAMN!" or "What's up, sexy", but those guys also looked like they were a part of a culture where that's the norm (i.e rap, hip hop, etc.). But come on..."How are you doing?" Really? If you consider a stranger asking you "How are you doing today" while you're walking by harassment, I really would never like to meet any of you. That doesn't seem like an appealing personality trait at all.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> You guys seriously think these were sexual advances?



Yes. Not ones that have a shot of success unless the recipient were a prostitute working the street, but absolutely more than just a normal greeting.




loqtrall said:


> Sure, there were a few guys that said "DAMN!" or "What's up, sexy", but those guys also looked like they were a part of a culture where that's the norm (i.e rap, hip hop, etc.).



Being from a low class, trashy culture doesn't make it acceptable, especially outside of that culture.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

And if examples of what was said to her isn't enough, I could also state who it was that said them, and what they were doing in relation to the walking lady. (more than likely just sitting or standing there.) 

Also, claiming to know what a complete stranger "really means" when they ask a woman "how are you today" is comical. Obviously none of these guys acted on their words, so for all anyone knows they could have either been trying to start a conversation or just asking how she was (like normal human being).


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Yes. Not ones that have a shot of success unless the recipient were a prostitute working the street, but absolutely more than just a normal greeting.


 
Are you serious? In what ....ing way is an elderly black man (first in the video) *literally* saying "How are you doing today?" (no "baby", no "sexy") considered a sexual advance?? 

Come on, man, really?


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Being from a low class, trashy culture doesn't make it acceptable, especially outside of that culture.


 
Also, way to insult someone else's culture just because you dislike it's traits. That borders closely on racism. Not quite, but close.

Reminds me of that Nigel Powers line: "There are two things in this world I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."


----------



## TedEH (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> I literally can not understand



Let's spell it out then. 

Here's a normal situation: you're minding your own business in public, and a stranger walks within your field of vision. You don't know them, they don't know you, neither person is interacting, nor intends to. Maybe that person is attractive, maybe not, but it's irrelevant because you don't know the person, and you're not in a social situation where it's appropriate to approach people for no good reason. Nothing is said because nothing needs to be said. Everyone is happy.

Here's another normal situation: You work at a store, attractive customer comes in. They pay for their stuff, and you end the transaction with "have a nice day". It makes sense here- you have the context of the transaction, the existing interaction, to justify the conversation. Everyone is still happy.

Here's the part you're not getting: You're outside minding your own business like in the first example. Tons of people walk by, and you say nothing to them because there's no reason to. Then one of the people walking by is someone you find very attractive. There's no invitation, there's no existing interaction. You think, "hey, this person is attractive, but not so much that I can't approach them, right?". So you say something, even if it's just a "hi" and get no response. You're no longer happy because you were ignored. She's no longer happy because _she knows the only reason you spoke to her and not everyone else who walked by, is that you thought she was attractive_. Compliment or not, you were motivated by the fact that some part of your brain decided that this might be a means to get laid eventually. Or start a relationship or friendship or something? Nah, who are we kidding, it's entirely sex. 

That's the context people are talking about: _people don't introduce themselves to strangers for no reason_. Receiving unsolicited comments while minding your own business is uncomfortable enough, but add the fact that it's very clear that those comments were sexually motivated.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 5, 2014)

Damn, you guys went IN on me, and it hasn't even been 24 hrs. 



asher said:


> You realize that "she's wearing tight clothing, she's asking for attention and deserves whatever harassment she gets" is *the exact same logic*?


No, because I never said she deserves to be harassed. And she wasn't. You love putting words in my mouth, don't you? 



asher said:


> If she doesn't want gawking, it's on her to wear loose baggy clothing that doesn't show off her figure? This is the same line logic also leads to women wearing burkas (when taken to its logical conclusion).


We're not talking about gawking, which is also not harassment, btw. Try to focus here.   



asher said:


> (Also, the short skirt type of comment is, unfortunately, far more pervasive than 4chan).


That was YOUR remark, not mine, remember?  I mean, you TRIED to make it my remark, but it didn't work. 



asher said:


> Stuff like "'Hello Miss. Miss? MISS! HEY .... YOU BITCH!'" and etc don't count? Or stalking?


Ummm... what?  Pretty sure no one said that either. Your childish way of "arguing" is exasperating.



asher said:


> ted: not sure it's worth trying to engage him any more if he's going to be so willfully ignorant.





asher said:


> sevenstringj? I'm just going to be surprised if he actually has substantive answers to tedtan's questions.


Says the maniac who repeatedly tries to put words in my mouth and pretend I condone rape, stalking, harassment, and fundamentalist Islam. 



tedtan said:


> Perhaps you don't understand what harassment is. The first definition from Merriam-Websters is "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way". And some of the comments and behaviors in that video do constitute harassment.



Perhaps you don't understand what harassment is. The first definition from Merriam-Websters is "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way". And none of the comments and behaviors in that video constitute harassment.

 Did you really think you made an argument? You have to explain how their actions constitute harassment by that definition. I explain how they DON'T below, but I'll address your snide, sarcastic nonsense first...



tedtan said:


> Why do you continue to justify this type of behavior? Do you participate in it yourself? If so, perhaps you could provide some insight into for those of us without your insider knowledge, maybe open our eyes so to speak.



I don't justify this behavior. I don't do it myself. And I don't judge those who do. I simply point out the fact that it's not harassment. Why do you continue to pretend she was harassed? Why do you continue to justify her deliberately abnormal passive-aggressive behavior? Why do you continue to justify misleading propaganda? Why don't they release the full video? We have 10 hours of keyboard cat...



...and my guess is that the actual, complete, unedited version is just as mundane.



tedtan said:


> He's referring to sevstingj who is trolling, not you TedEH.
> 
> EDIT: Ninja'd


So when you can't make a proper rebuttal, just accuse the person of "trolling." I'll reiterate in the unlikely event you & asher stop coddling each other and decide to make a valid point:

-The video was carefully edited for feminist propaganda--and this is besides the "unintended racial bias" (which I suppose is now a feminist euphemism for racism)--so we really don't even know exactly how some of those situations unfolded.
-Most remarks were innocuous.
-1 or 2 were disrespectful, but a disrespectful remark in passing is not harassment.
-Her behavior was deliberately and abnormally passive-aggressive. Trying to talk to someone like that for a few minutes is dumb, but not harassment.
-The guy who "followed" her in silence was already going in that direction. And since she literally had nowhere to go, it's possible he felt that she was following him.  Is he supposed to cross the street? Wait an extra light? Turn a corner and go out of his way?
-A man experienced the same "harassment" in a similar video, but that's ok with you, right? (It should be, because it's not harassment in either case.)


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Also, way to insult someone else's culture just because you dislike it's traits. That borders closely on racism. Not quite, but close.
> 
> Reminds me of that Nigel Powers line: "There are two things in this world I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."



Nope, try again. What I said wasn't even close to racism because the behavior has nothing to do with race. That behavior is trashy regardless of who is behaving that way - race, gender, religion, etc. don't even come into play.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

I didn't say you directly said those things, I said that's where the logic and reasoning you're applying leads. Very different things. I also notice that you can't follow any inferences whatsoever, but okay.

Although, you know, calling me names is a totally cool way to rebut, instead of actually answering the logic.

Also, how the hell is she being "deliberately passive agressive"? By ignoring strangers?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Perhaps you don't understand what harassment is. The first definition from Merriam-Websters is "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way".


This video shows her getting bothered repeatedly, does it not?


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Let's spell it out then.
> 
> Here's a normal situation: you're minding your own business in public, and a stranger walks within your field of vision. You don't know them, they don't know you, neither person is interacting, nor intends to. Maybe that person is attractive, maybe not, but it's irrelevant because you don't know the person, and you're not in a social situation where it's appropriate to approach people for no good reason. Nothing is said because nothing needs to be said. Everyone is happy.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, for one, nobody introduced themselves, and all but two of the guys didn't even approach her and continued sitting where they were. Two, the idea that a man would only introduce himself to a woman he doesn't know because he thinks it would lead to sex is ridiculous, no, it's idiotic. Thirdly, how do you know in what context someone is greeting someone on the street? Or how do you know that woman was the only person those men greeted when 99% of them were on-screen for less than 5 seconds. You're totally generalizing and making guesses.

If I pass a black man and he says, "how are you doing?", I don't think he wants to have sex with me. If an older woman passed by and said "Having a good day?" I doubt she sees potential in having sex with me, especially if that's all she says. I'm truly interested in knowing where you guys live to make you think those aren't just normal greetings and that every man in that video spoke to that woman to try to get laid, because I want to stay far away from there.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> This video shows her getting bothered repeatedly, does it not?


 
But not by one sole man. All but one of them just spoke to her once and briefly.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 5, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Perhaps you don't understand what harassment is. The first definition from Merriam-Websters is "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way". And none of the comments and behaviors in that video constitute harassment.
> 
> Did you really think you made an argument? You have to explain how their actions constitute harassment by that definition. I explain how they DON'T below, but I'll address your snide, sarcastic nonsense first...



Even by the technical definition, the guy walking beside her and the guy asking why she didn't answer him were harassing her.




sevenstringj said:


> Why do you continue to justify misleading propaganda?



I don't. Had you read the tread, you'd have seen that I have criticized it as misleading (though not untruthful). But it was absolutely set up by a viral marketing company and shot and edited in such a way as to generate attention. Carried out in this way, the video is not applicable to men in a larger scale than what was shot. The racial bias and having her dress in such a way as to garner that type of attention are further issues I've mentioned, along with shooting the video for 10 hours during the day when most people are working.




sevenstringj said:


> So when you can't make a proper rebuttal, just accuse the person of "trolling." I'll reiterate in the unlikely event you & asher stop coddling each other and decide to make a valid point:



As for your first point, you have been trolling. And for the second, you'll note that I have been on the not all men side arguing against Asher for most of the last two or three pages, so there's been no coddling there.




sevenstringj said:


> Her behavior was deliberately and abnormally passive-aggressive. Trying to talk to someone like that for a few minutes is dumb, but not harassment.



Walking along minding your own business is now considered passive aggressive? In what world?




sevenstringj said:


> The guy who "followed" her in silence was already going in that direction.



Right next to her, right. Were you there during the filming to see this in person or are you making things up to support your argument?




sevenstringj said:


> A man experienced the same "harassment" in a similar video, but that's ok with you, right? (It should be, because it's not harassment in either case.)



Had you been paying attention to the thread, you'd have noticed that I've condemned this behavior universally. And defended men's rights, too. So to borrow your own line:

"That was YOUR remark, not mine, remember?  I mean, you TRIED to make it my remark, but it didn't work. "


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Nope, try again. What I said wasn't even close to racism because the behavior has nothing to do with race. That behavior is trashy regardless of who is behaving that way - race, gender, religion, etc. don't even come into play.


 
In your opinion. I don't think you understand the word culture. Their culture isn't trashy just because you think it is. There are obviously hundreds of thousands of people around the globe that think American culture is trashy, that doesn't mean those who are a part of american culture are scum. Also, people are born in to it and can't help it. That's like telling a white guy who was raised by neo-nazis to be racist "you can be racist in your house, but when you come outside you have to hug this black man and be his friend".


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> But not by one sole man. All but one of them just spoke to her once and briefly.


Since you're so keen on throwing around nonsense and sticking to dictionary definitions, where in your quote does it mention it has to be one person doing it? 

People bother her repeatedly which can be considered harassment. 

 @ feminist propoganda though


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> Since you're so keen on throwing around nonsense and sticking to dictionary definitions, where in your quote does it mention it has to be one person doing it?
> 
> People bother her repeatedly which can be considered harassment.
> 
> @ feminist propoganda though


 
Man, I literally facepalmed.

Because in the video, it EXPLICITLY STATES that she was harassed on 100+ separate occassions, which is false. The only guys who actually harassed her were the two that followed her. Someone greeting you one time then saying nothing else is not harassment.

EDIT: and people didn't bother her repeatedly, she was repeatedly bothered, but by several different people only one time. Most of the guys in the video weren't even on the same street. It's not like she was getting a constant flow of harassment the entire time she was walking.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Man, I literally facepalmed.


Imagine how we've been feeling ever since you stumbled in.

Edit: also, see Ashers post below.


----------



## asher (Nov 5, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> EDIT: and people didn't bother her repeatedly, she was repeatedly bothered, but by several different people only one time. Most of the guys in the video weren't even on the same street. It's not like she was getting a constant flow of harassment the entire time she was walking.



Because being repeatedly bothered over the course of a walk somehow makes it not count.

It just means the harassment is done by a dispersed, hard-to-define group. It doesn't stop counting because it's a different person each time.


----------



## loqtrall (Nov 5, 2014)

If it makes you feel any better, I'm leaving this conversation. You three (or four) are the ONLY people I've discussed this matter with (over several forums) that think that these men saying simple greetings and compliments to a passing woman is clear cut evidence that they're pigs who only wanted to sleep with her. Honestly, it kind of makes me sick, and I feel that's a very sad view to have. I really have nothing else to say, as it's been like talking to rocks.

I guess all I can leave you with is, have fun not meeting a woman you're interested in because saying hello or asking how she is would indicate that you want to bone her. Because that makes perfect sense.

Goodbye, all.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 5, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> -The video was carefully edited for feminist propaganda--and this is besides the "unintended racial bias" (which I suppose is now a feminist euphemism for racism)--so we really don't even know exactly how some of those situations unfolded.
> -Most remarks were innocuous.
> -1 or 2 were disrespectful, but a disrespectful remark in passing is not harassment.
> -Her behavior was deliberately and abnormally passive-aggressive. Trying to talk to someone like that for a few minutes is dumb, but not harassment.
> ...



1. I'm not going to make any comment on the racial aspect of this video. I don't think there's any reason to believe they were targeting African Americans, and even if they did it's not really relevant to the point they were trying to make. That's a whole separate issue, provided you could prove that's what they were trying to do.
2. Innocuous or not, that's not relevant either. 
3. An uninvited, disrespectful remark is absolutely harassment. I don't see any way you could argue that it isn't. 
4. If she had engaged these people, what the fuk would the point of the video be? The point is she's getting an abnormal amount of unwanted attention because of her lady parts.
5. That guy followed her for 5 minutes straight. That's one hell of a coincidence. Do me a favor: find a stopwatch (or an app, gotta love 2014 ) and sit there quietly for 5 minutes. That's a long time. My guess is he's just a creep. 
6. No, it's not ok just because the 'victim' in the other video is a man. If it's wrong to do to women, it's probably wrong to do to men as well.

EDIT: Damn, I was way late on that one. Whoops.


----------



## wat (Nov 5, 2014)

Honestly, just saying hi to a random person walking down the street is just f_u_cking annoying. She's obviously on her way somewhere so keep to your f_u_cking self.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

It's actually quite normal for people to spark random conversations with people in public in a completely nonsexual context. When I was seeing a therapist about a year ago that's exactly what she told me to do in fact: make eye contact with people, make a simple salutation, if in an elevator make small talk, etc. to connect with your fellow human beings. 

That's one of the few points I seem to be in disagreement with some of you on. I say hello to men, women and children, wave to little kids, open doors for the elderly, men and women, make small talk in lines and elevators with guys and girls alike, etc.. 

If all of that qualifies as harassment I guess I harass a lot of people, but I'm not going to stop either. I much prefer to live in a world where we connect with each other than a world where everyone is afraid to say 'hi' as if it somehow might be taken out of context.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 5, 2014)

Come on Flint, after all that's been said here you can't be playing that one. Read back, no one said engaging in friendly small talk like what you describe is in any way harassment. I assume your therapist didn't tell you to yell "hey beautiful" from across the street.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 5, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> Come on Flint, after all that's been said here you can't be playing that one. Read back, no one said engaging in friendly small talk like what you describe is in any way harassment. I assume your therapist didn't tell you to yell "hey beautiful" from across the street.



Uhhhh....no need to read too far back. I'm pretty sure Flint was responding to the post directly before his, where Wat obviously disagrees?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 5, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> Come on Flint, after all that's been said here you can't be playing that one. Read back, no one said engaging in friendly small talk like what you describe is in any way harassment. I assume your therapist didn't tell you to yell "hey beautiful" from across the street.



I certainly wouldn't, but some of y'all are grouping more obvious sexualized expressions with less obvious salutations, so it's kind of hard to keep track. It seemed y'all were in fact implying that talking to people when it isn't directly necessary (as in you have to) as inappropriate behavior. Read what wat posted above me and you get why I have no idea what y'all deem acceptable and what you don't.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 5, 2014)

Yeah, I'd buy that. there's that huge gray area and everyone's boundaries are gonna be different. You can't take words without context. "How's it going?" Could mean a lot of things in a lot of situations. That phrase reads innocuous, but spoken could be different.


----------



## Edika (Nov 5, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Compliment or not, you were motivated by the fact that some part of your brain decided that this might be a means to get laid eventually. Or start a relationship or friendship or something? Nah, who are we kidding, it's entirely sex.



I'll like to make a more general comment, not specifically aimed at TedEH and the whole comment. Why not? Why not approach a member of the opposite sex because you find them attractive and just want to have sex. Why should you have a relationship and a commitment in mind to do that? And vice versa of course.
Why can't we be a bit more bonobo and a bit less chimpanzee in this matter?

I just think that this should not be confused with harassment. Sexual desire and how it is expressed are linked and separate subjects.

I also agree with flint757 on the saying hello and speaking to people. It really depends on where you live. In a small city it's easier for people to approach you or start saying hello if they meet you more than once per week. It won't be considered inappropriate. That's more difficult in big cities where most interactions are "faceless". Social interaction should be more common in urban areas and that is what helps with non objectifying of our fellow man or woman.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 5, 2014)

asher said:


> I didn't say you directly said those things, I said that's where the logic and reasoning you're applying leads.



No, that's where the logic and reasoning YOU'RE applying, to the words you put in my mouth, may or may not lead.  My arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the _s_hit you repeatedly try to foist on me.



asher said:


> Although, you know, calling me names is a totally cool way to rebut, instead of actually answering the logic.


Straw-manning the _s_hit outta me is not logic. It's actually a logical fallacy. 



asher said:


> Also, how the hell is she being "deliberately passive agressive"? By ignoring strangers?





tedtan said:


> Walking along minding your own business is now considered passive aggressive? In what world?


(I lumped these together cuz it's the same crap.) That's not exactly what I said, nor is that exactly what happened. I said "abnormally" & deliberately passive aggressive. Most normal women on a normal day don't walk out the door saying to themselves "today I'm going to give everyone the cold shoulder, while covertly recording them. I'm going to reject all guys in my head and expect them to read my mind as I silently scroll through my feminist manifesto." 



UnderTheSign said:


> This video shows her getting bothered repeatedly, does it not?



No, it doesn't. I even explained it in the very reply you conveniently half-quoted.  loqtrall had an equally valid explanation.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Even by the technical definition, the guy walking beside her and the guy asking why she didn't answer him were harassing her.


Nope. Again, she was walking next to him, despite the fact that she literally wasn't going anywhere in particular. The chump who asked her if he's too ugly for her lol wasn't harassing either. She actually smirked a few times. I guarantee that under normal circumstances, she would've actually talked to at least a few people. Again, this was deliberately abnormal, antisocial behavior with an ulterior motive.



tedtan said:


> As for your first point, you have been trolling.


There you go again with that baseless ad hominem.  How about this: YOU'RE trolling. And I'll just leave that hanging there unqualified, as you've done. 'ppreciate the tip! 



tedtan said:


> Right next to her, right. Were you there during the filming to see this in person or are you making things up to support your argument?


No, and neither were you. Describing what happened in the vid isn't "making stuff up." He WAS already walking in that direction himself. In fact, in the last part of that segment, he's actually a bit ahead of her and she picks up her pace a bit to get ahead just to make her stupid point. 



tedtan said:


> Had you been paying attention to the thread, you'd have noticed that I've condemned this behavior universally. And defended men's rights, too. So to borrow your own line:
> 
> "That was YOUR remark, not mine, remember?  I mean, you TRIED to make it my remark, but it didn't work. "



I don't have to read all your posts to other people. You started in with me, and I wasn't even talking to you.  Besides, you can "condemn this behavior universally" all you want. It's not harassment.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 6, 2014)

GizmoGardens said:


> 1. I'm not going to make any comment on the racial aspect of this video. I don't think there's any reason to believe they were targeting African Americans, and even if they did it's not really relevant to the point they were trying to make. That's a whole separate issue, provided you could prove that's what they were trying to do.


Since their "point" is invalid, their "unintended racial bias" is certainly an issue.


GizmoGardens said:


> Innocuous or not, that's not relevant either.


Yeah, it is. "Have a nice day" is not harassment. Neither is "DAYUM!" 


GizmoGardens said:


> An uninvited, disrespectful remark is absolutely harassment. I don't see any way you could argue that it isn't.


I dunno, maybe because "an uninvited disrespectful remark" is not the definition of harassment?  


GizmoGardens said:


> If she had engaged these people, what the fuk would the point of the video be? The point is she's getting an abnormal amount of unwanted attention because of her lady parts.


Abnormal? 1 person every 5 minutes in NYC. By your own admission below, that's a long ass time.  And this was the worst they could scrap together in 10 hours. 


GizmoGardens said:


> That guy followed her for 5 minutes straight. That's one hell of a coincidence. Do me a favor: find a stopwatch (or an app, gotta love 2014 ) and sit there quietly for 5 minutes. That's a long time. My guess is he's just a creep.


Yeah, it's quite a long time, especially since he was actually walking in that direction already, while she was wandering around aimlessly and could've crossed the street. And like I pointed out to the other dude, the last part of that segment shows him ahead of her and she speeds up a bit to pull ahead of him just to make her stupid point. 


GizmoGardens said:


> No, it's not ok just because the 'victim' in the other video is a man. If it's wrong to do to women, it's probably wrong to do to men as well.


At least you put victim in quotes.  Neither video shows harassment.


----------



## wat (Nov 6, 2014)

ITT someone defends borderline grinding on a random woman on the street


----------



## TedEH (Nov 6, 2014)

Edika said:


> a more general comment, not specifically aimed at TedEH and the whole comment. Why not? Why not approach a member of the opposite sex because you find them attractive and just want to have sex.



I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that approaching someone at all with that intention is "bad" in itself, so much as there's a time and place for that- my personal opinion is that on the streets minding your own business is not that time or place most of the time.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> It's actually quite normal for people to spark random conversations with people in public in a completely nonsexual context.



I'll admit this is likely in response to something I said, and that I probably exaggerated, over-simplified, or generalized a bit much- but I think that in cases where you start random conversations with strangers, there's usually some sort of context there to start the conversation off of. Like if you're both shopping, and you ask for an opinion on something you might want to buy. Or if you're in a restaurant, and ask a stranger if they have a recommendation for what you might try. Or maybe you're wearing the same thing, and want to point that out. Maybe you're asking for directions. I'll even grant that maybe something visually stands out about a particular person and you might want to point that out- 

But none of what was in that original video was an example of that. All of the examples were very much "hey, she's hot, lets talk to her", and I think it's clearly been demonstrated that a lot of people think that's a perfectly fine thing to do, despite others recognizing that it makes some recipients uncomfortable.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 6, 2014)

No, it was in response to the thread in general and the post just prior to the one where that was posted.


----------



## wat (Nov 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that approaching someone at all with that intention is "bad" in itself, so much as there's a time and place for that- *my personal opinion is that on the streets minding your own business is not that time or place most of the time.*



AKA not being an annoying jerkoff


----------



## Edika (Nov 6, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that approaching someone at all with that intention is "bad" in itself, so much as there's a time and place for that- my personal opinion is that on the streets minding your own business is not that time or place most of the time.



I agree and that is why I just wanted to echo this sentiment that seems to be go to the other extreme. It's just seems that sometimes in discussions people tend to go to more philosophical and theoretical directions that don't apply to reality or actually giving solutions.

Honestly one of the main reason for this kind of objectification towards either of the sexes, and women mostly, is the social isolation and/or marginalization of various groups of people or individuals. That and the internal dialogue that will ensue after an initial "dirty" thought in conjunction with an individuals sense of entitlement.

I'll give an example that has nothing to do with any kind of sexual overtones. Think of about your thought process is when seeing a homeless person.


----------



## asher (Nov 6, 2014)

I hope that even those of you disagree with the position can appreciate how hilarious some of these tweets are 



> You see a dude looking all hard & shit. Roll up on him like "Aye yo, smile, son. Damn." BRING SUNSHINE TO HIS DAY.



http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/dudes-greeting-dudes?bffb


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> (I lumped these together cuz it's the same crap.) That's not exactly what I said, nor is that exactly what happened. I said "abnormally" & deliberately passive aggressive. Most normal women on a normal day don't walk out the door saying to themselves "today I'm going to give everyone the cold shoulder, while covertly recording them. I'm going to reject all guys in my head and expect them to read my mind as I silently scroll through my feminist manifesto."



Of course there was an "abnormal" intent due to filming - that's a given. But I still don't see any passive aggressive behavior. And, as for the rest of your statement, you're reading quite a bit into the video and the minds of the people who made it, imagining their motivations and even conversations with themselves, yet you're presenting these ideas as facts. Don't do that.




sevenstringj said:


> Nope. Again, she was walking next to him, despite the fact that she literally wasn't going anywhere in particular. The chump who asked her if he's too ugly for her lol wasn't harassing either. She actually smirked a few times. I guarantee that under normal circumstances, she would've actually talked to at least a few people. Again, this was deliberately abnormal, antisocial behavior with an ulterior motive.



And I'm sure he just casually happened to walk next to her, looking over at her several times, as a coincidence, right? And you weren't there, but I'll bet you're willing to guarantee it, too, right? 




sevenstringj said:


> There you go again with that baseless ad hominem.  How about this: YOU'RE trolling. And I'll just leave that hanging there unqualified, as you've done. 'ppreciate the tip!



First, it is not an ad hominem attack when one describes something relevant about you or your behavior, only if they bring up characteristics you possess and so forth. And ad hominem it is only a logical fallacy if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and in this case, it is relevant.

Also, its fine to have an opinion and to discuss it, but the tone of your posts has been designed to elicit a response, e.g., trolling, to whit (emphasis mine): 

sevenstringj said:


> Actually, it has everything to do with this. A ****PAWG**** in skin-tight clothes to show off her large/nice/whatever *FAT* ass, 29" waist, THICK thighs and DD tits while walking around Harlem is most definitely an invitation attention whoring. (The *captain save-a-hoes* behind the vid even apologized for the "unintended racial bias." ) Hold on, *lemme find some crocodile tears for her "plight"*...


​


sevenstringj said:


> I don't have to read all your posts to other people. You started in with me, and I wasn't even talking to you.  Besides, you can "condemn this behavior universally" all you want. It's not harassment.



I certainly don't expect you to read all of my posts (though you may well enjoy doing so ), but I do expect you to avoid putting words in my mouth after you've just chastised someone else for putting words in yours. Failing to do so makes you look like a hypocrite and a buffoon.




sevenstringj said:


> Yeah, it is. "Have a nice day" is not harassment.



When taken out of context like this, it certainly looks innocent, but in the context of the video, it was.




sevenstringj said:


> Neither is "DAYUM!"



This doesn't depend on context - it is always objectifying, insulting and harassing. Certainly when used outside the ghetto.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 6, 2014)

asher said:


> I hope that even those of you disagree with the position can appreciate how hilarious some of these tweets are
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/dudes-greeting-dudes?bffb


I wanted to post this when I came home from work. Freaking brilliant


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Of course there was an "abnormal" intent due to filming - that's a given. But I still don't see any passive aggressive behavior. And, as for the rest of your statement, you're reading quite a bit into the video and the minds of the people who made it, imagining their motivations and even conversations with themselves, yet you're presenting these ideas as facts. Don't do that.


*sigh* Not because of filming. What part of normal social behavior is "silent walking for 10 hrs through NYC?"  I'm just paraphrasing their clearly stated, self-imposed, abnormally antisocial behavior along with their clearly stated ulterior motive.



tedtan said:


> And I'm sure he just casually happened to walk next to her, looking over at her several times, as a coincidence, right? And you weren't there, but I'll bet you're willing to guarantee it, too, right?


Looking over at her several times, huh? And you have the nerve to accuse me of "making stuff up."  But anyway, I'd look over at least a couple times if someone were "following" me. And as has become typical of you caped crusaders, I see you conveniently left out the rest of my answer which would've preempted your worthless sarcasm:

"No, and neither were you. Describing what happened in the vid isn't "making stuff up." He WAS already walking in that direction himself. In fact, in the last part of that segment, he's actually a bit ahead of her and she picks up her pace a bit to get ahead just to make her stupid point. "

Can't let him get ahead and fu_c_k it up for the camera, right? 



tedtan said:


> First, it is not an ad hominem attack when one describes something relevant about you or your behavior, only if they bring up characteristics you possess and so forth. And ad hominem it is only a logical fallacy if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and in this case, it is relevant.
> 
> Also, its fine to have an opinion and to discuss it, but the tone of your posts has been designed to elicit a response, e.g., trolling, to whit (emphasis mine):



Except that's not trolling. That's expressing indifference to her fabricated problem. Funny how you didn't start accusing me of trolling until after I rebutted you point-by-point. Obviously your "troll" angle is petty character-assasination type bullshit you spew in lieu of having a valid argument. I.e., ad hominem.



tedtan said:


> I certainly don't expect you to read all of my posts (though you may well enjoy doing so ), but I do expect you to avoid putting words in my mouth after you've just chastised someone else for putting words in yours. Failing to do so makes you look like a hypocrite and a buffoon.


I posted the video of the dude being "harassed" in a direct reply to you, and your condemnation was curiously absent. You even quoted me but conveniently left out that part. So it's safe to say that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, and your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" is empty rhetoric.



tedtan said:


> When taken out of context like this, it certainly looks innocent, but in the context of the video, it was.


 Saying "have a nice day" to someone walking by is not harassment in ANY context, even by your own hand-picked dictionary definition of "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way." 



tedtan said:


> This doesn't depend on context - it is always objectifying, insulting and harassing. Certainly when used outside the ghetto.


 Now your just throwing words together. Objectification in and of itself doesn't constitute an insult or harassment. DAYUM isn't harassment even by your own hand-picked dictionary definition. And while it ain't a terribly sophisticated way of expressing admiration for someone's physical beauty, that's what it is, and that's the exact opposite of an insult.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 6, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Of course there was an "abnormal" intent due to filming - that's a given. But I still don't see any passive aggressive behavior. And, as for the rest of your statement, you're reading quite a bit into the video and the minds of the people who made it, imagining their motivations and even conversations with themselves, yet you're presenting these ideas as facts. Don't do that.



OP did exactly this in the beginning, except he did not limit his inferences to just a few people. He made claims of "simple facts" that apply to not only the thought processes but the mental capabilities of the majority of men on this planet.

WHY is it OK for the OP to do it, but not people on the other side?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> *sigh* Not because of filming. What part of normal social behavior is "silent walking for 10 hrs through NYC?"  I'm just paraphrasing their clearly stated, self-imposed, abnormally antisocial behavior along with their clearly stated ulterior motive.



Sure you are. There's no bias on your part. 




sevenstringj said:


> Looking over at her several times, huh? And you have the nerve to accuse me of "making stuff up."



It's there. Go watch the video again and, if you pay attention this time, you'll see it, too.




sevenstringj said:


> Can't let him get ahead and fu_c_k it up for the camera, right?



If that's what happened, but I don't see that.




sevenstringj said:


> Except that's not trolling. That's expressing indifference to her fabricated problem. Funny how you didn't start accusing me of trolling until after I rebutted you point-by-point. Obviously your "troll" angle is petty character-assasination type bullshit you spew in lieu of having a valid argument. I.e., ad hominem.



First, it was perceived as trolling by people other than me, too. So rather than claiming that "trolling" was an ad hominem attack, you'd do well to work on the way you present your arguments if want people to take them seriously.

Also, you had not "rebutted me point by point", you had only responded to one or two posts and posted up a video everyone else had already discussed a page or two prior, so nothing of significance.




sevenstringj said:


> I posted the video of the dude being "harassed" in a direct reply to you, and your condemnation was curiously absent. You even quoted me but conveniently left out that part. So it's safe to say that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, and your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" is empty rhetoric.



That's funny. If you can't be bothered to research what you're talking about, I can't be bothered to dig it up for you.




sevenstringj said:


> Saying "have a nice day" to someone walking by is not harassment in ANY context, even by your own hand-picked dictionary definition of "to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way."
> 
> Now your just throwing words together. Objectification in and of itself doesn't constitute an insult or harassment. DAYUM isn't harassment even by your own hand-picked dictionary definition. And while it ain't a terribly sophisticated way of expressing admiration for someone's physical beauty, that's what it is, and that's the exact opposite of an insult.



Your opinion is clearly different than many others' (here and elsewhere) on this point, so there's no point reiterating it over and over. You won't change my mind on this and I won't change yours, so there no point discussing it further.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 6, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> OP did exactly this in the beginning, except he did not limit his inferences to just a few people. He made claims of "simple facts" that apply to not only the thought processes but the mental capabilities of the majority of men on this planet.
> 
> WHY is it OK for the OP to do it, but not people on the other side?



It's not, but he's not here discussing it. Also, I've previously called the OP on some of his comments, too.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 6, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> You three (or four) are the ONLY people I've discussed this matter with (over several forums) that think that these men saying simple greetings and compliments to a passing woman is clear cut evidence that they're pigs who only wanted to sleep with her. Honestly, it kind of makes me sick, and I feel that's a very sad view to have.



I'm curious as to whether there was any discussion of the video with women he knows in real life, or if there were any women in those forums. Since he left the discussion, I guess we'll never know. 

I don't think it's any secret that the internet is full of fora which are hostile to women, as well as some which are clueless. All the MRA stuff and the recent Gamergate stuff demonstrates that harassment, to the point of death threats and rape threats, exists from the white guys. 

Even though the vid at the center of the topic doesn't show white guys posting a woman's personal information in order for her to be threatened, raped and/or killed, and therefore the video doesn't give the white guys enough love... I hope that anyone complaining can take comfort in the fact that the white guys have definitely demonstrated the capacity for harassment. 



loqtrall said:


> I guess all I can leave you with is, have fun not meeting a woman you're interested in because saying hello or asking how she is would indicate that you want to bone her. Because that makes perfect sense.



Funny... 

A while ago, when I wasn't in a relationship, I was in the grocery store. There was this funky song on the PA system, and this woman was bopping along to it. I had been moving my head to the music, and it made me laugh to see someone else getting into it. 

So I stopped at the end of the aisle, and walked back to her.

"I love that you're capable of dancing in a grocery store. You strike me as someone worthwhile knowing. May I invite you to a coffee?"

She laughed, and told me she was in a relationship, but that she had appreciated me telling her that, and that she had noticed me moving to the music too. 

What's funny is... I wasn't thinking at that moment, Wow, I want to put my penis into her! I really thought she was neat, and told her so. She didn't think I was trying to put my penis into her either, as far as I could tell. 

I know a lot of guys who say, Oh, come on! Every guy is just in it for the sex! And they're wrong, and often everyone can tell the ones who are motivated by the sex versus those who are looking for more. 

And the difference is obvious to a lot of people, even if it's not to the ones who claim there is no difference.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Funny...
> 
> A while ago, when I wasn't in a relationship, I was in the grocery store. There was this funky song on the PA system, and this woman was bopping along to it. I had been moving my head to the music, and it made me laugh to see someone else getting into it.
> 
> ...



Contrary to the impression that I may have given in my last post, I don't think that every guy is in it for the sex. Stories like this are one of those nice charming little stories that can give anyone warm and fuzzy feelings, and that's a good thing. But you had a _reason_ to talk to this woman beyond the mere fact of her existence or (possible) physical attractiveness. She was doing something that intrigued you. No one calling at this girl in the video had any reason to talk to her. Aside from her obvious physical attractiveness, she was as nondescript a person as they come, and wasn't doing anything to invite attention to herself. While I'll warrant that some of the people in the video were saying hi just because they really are that nice, most of the men in that video were talking to her solely based on her looks.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> All the MRA stuff and the recent Gamergate stuff demonstrates that harassment [...] exists from the white guys.



If I'm interpreting this correctly, I can agree with the sentiment that all colours of people are capable of harassment, including white people- but I don't see how MRA or Gamergate are a "white" thing. I feel like the assumption is always that an unsavory comment from the internet _must_ be from a white guy, when in reality you have no idea who is really behind anything online.



Explorer said:


> She laughed, and told me she was in a relationship [...] She didn't think I was trying to put my penis into her



I think these two sentences contradict each other. You may not have wanted specifically and only sex, per se, but you were still approaching a woman in public with romantic intent, and she responded in a way that acknowledged that. If it had been a man, or a woman you weren't attracted to, you would not have asked them to join you for a drink. That's not to say that I think what you did was wrong, or harassment- your story differs from that of the cat-calling by the fact that there was an existing interaction of some sort to warrant a conversation (and that you weren't rude about it)- but you can't deny that your intent in that moment is comparable to anyone else trying to "meet a woman".


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 7, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Sure you are. There's no bias on your part.


Despite your persistent, lame sarcasm, that's exactly right. "silent walking in NYC for 10 hrs" = abnormal antisocial behavior. Only a social retard (or a troll) could think otherwise.



tedtan said:


> It's there. Go watch the video again and, if you pay attention this time, you'll see it, too.


No, it's not. 1st "look" (@ 0:50) was when he noticed her there and told her god bless & have a nice day. (Oh, the horror!) There was a second look @ 1:02 because he was already going in the same direction. The 3rd and final look (@ 1:08) was when she sped up to get ahead of him because _she_ was actually following _him_ at that point to purposely make him look like a creep. You do know that she not only had an ulterior motive, but that she's a professional actor, right?



tedtan said:


> If that's what happened, but I don't see that.


Creationists conveniently "don't see" transitional fossils. So you're in good company. 



tedtan said:


> First, it was perceived as trolling by people other than me, too. So rather than claiming that "trolling" was an ad hominem attack, you'd do well to work on the way you present your arguments if want people to take them seriously.


Only you accused me of trolling, and only after I refuted you. And you've taken my rebuttals quite seriously, thank you very much.  Further evidence that crying "ur trolling" is just your excuse for losing an argument.



tedtan said:


> Also, you had not "rebutted me point by point", you had only responded to one or two posts...


...and refuted them point-by-point. 



tedtan said:


> ...and posted up a video everyone else had already discussed a page or two prior, so nothing of significance.


Another bald-faced lie. There was no discussion of that video. Certainly YOU were nowhere to be found.  Go ahead and hotlink/quote yourself if I'm wrong.



So I posted it in a reply directly to you and you conveniently ignored it AGAIN. Obviously you want to blow it off as "nothing of significance" because your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" is purely rhetoric. (That's a nice way of saying you're full of shit and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I.e., trolling.)



tedtan said:


> Your opinion is clearly different than many others' (here and elsewhere) on this point, so there's no point reiterating it over and over. You won't change my mind on this and I won't change yours, so there no point discussing it further.


Actually, many others agree with me here and elsewhere. And it's not that I have a different opinion. I'm acknowledging facts that you repeatedly and conveniently sweep under the rug.


----------



## protest (Nov 7, 2014)

I'm guessing that I'm joining a shit storm of a thread. I didn't read any of this, but I did watch the video a week or so ago. There was definitely some harassment, and unneeded creepiness in there, but there was also a decent amount of cases of people saying hi.

When you depict it in this way the hi seems unnecessary (and judging from the tone of some of them they def were), but in general if saying hi is harassment then I have harassed dozens of innocent coworkers and men, women, and children across the tri-state area. When I'm walking and I share eye contact with someone I usually say "hey" or "how you doing?" regardless of if they're a guy or a girl. I feel like it's rude to not acknowledge someone. I also sometimes wave to or make goofy faces at toddlers in line at the grocery store.. I'm guessing if someone filmed it they could make me seem uber creepy.


----------



## vilk (Nov 7, 2014)

That's not the point. These femdudes in the thread aren't trying to say that simply speaking to this lady is the problem--rather that these guys see a lady and immediately think of sex, and then approach her in that [lack of] context. Which is weird, because I just thought that was a normal part of being a heterosexual male. I guess I'm just morally depraved or something.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 7, 2014)

protest said:


> I'm guessing that I'm joining a shit storm of a thread.



In that sense I think the video did exactly what it set out to do.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 7, 2014)

protest said:


> I'm guessing that I'm joining a shit storm of a thread. I didn't read any of this, but I did watch the video a week or so ago. There was definitely some harassment, and unneeded creepiness in there, but there was also a decent amount of cases of people saying hi.
> 
> When you depict it in this way the hi seems unnecessary (and judging from the tone of some of them they def were), but in general if saying hi is harassment then I have harassed dozens of innocent coworkers and men, women, and children across the tri-state area. When I'm walking and I share eye contact with someone I usually say "hey" or "how you doing?" regardless of if they're a guy or a girl. I feel like it's rude to not acknowledge someone. I also sometimes wave to or make goofy faces at toddlers in line at the grocery store.. I'm guessing if someone filmed it they could make me seem uber creepy.



The 2nd half of your post puts into question the 1st half, "there was definitely some harassment." It's like a microcosm of this thread. People's initial reaction is often "harassment!" and they get themselves all worked up. But when you look at it carefully--like the black guy "following" her, when she's actually lagging a bit and then speeds up in order to get in front of him to pretend he's following her--and when you put it into perspective like you eventually did using examples where you've "harassed" people yourself, you realize it's propaganda meant to demonize normal, albeit sometimes counterproductive, social behavior.


----------



## protest (Nov 7, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> The 2nd half of your post puts into question the 1st half, "there was definitely some harassment." It's like a microcosm of this thread. People's initial reaction is often "harassment!" and they get themselves all worked up. But when you look at it carefully--like the black guy "following" her, when she's actually lagging a bit and then speeds up in order to get in front of him to pretend he's following her--and when you put it into perspective like you eventually did using examples where you've "harassed" people yourself, you realize it's propaganda meant to demonize normal, albeit sometimes counterproductive, social behavior.



Not all of that behavior was normal. I've never followed a girl around asking her why she wouldn't talk me because that's creepy. I've never said "damn girl" right at someone's face or yelled "hey beautiful" because that's rude. I don't find that as being normal behavior. 

But I agree that there's things in there that are made to look worse than they really are. When you add "Hi have a nice night" kind of stuff in with some rude and creepy dudes it makes that comment seem a lot different, which is disingenuous. I said have a nice night to a dude last night that held a door for me. I don't think that was harassment. That said, I would not dismiss the other instances as being taken out of context, or normal just because the creator was somewhat dishonest in the portrayal of some of the other examples. Certain things don't really need context in order to set off your "Eww Radar."


----------



## tedtan (Nov 7, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> Despite your persistent, lame sarcasm, that's exactly right. "silent walking in NYC for 10 hrs" = abnormal antisocial behavior. Only a social retard (or a troll) could think otherwise.



First, the sarcasm is only due to your own. Any time you want to drop the sarcasm and hyperbole and discuss the issue like adults, I'm game. Otherwise, learn to take it if you're going to dish it out.

Second, I've never claimed that walking around for 10 hours straight is normal, with or without speaking to people. It's a given that she was walking around for the purpose of the filming (which you dismissed earlier), so much so that it should go without saying (repeatedly). In fact, I'm not sure what _relevant_ point you're trying to make by repeating this argument over and over.

Additionally, I'd be willing to bet that at any give time, anywhere from 30% to 50% of the people walking around in New York are just trying to get to wherever they're going without being harassed along the way.




sevenstringj said:


> No, it's not. 1st "look" (@ 0:50) was when he noticed her there and told her god bless & have a nice day. (Oh, the horror!) There was a second look @ 1:02 because he was already going in the same direction. The 3rd and final look (@ 1:08) was when she sped up to get ahead of him because _she_ was actually following _him_ at that point to purposely make him look like a creep. You do know that she not only had an ulterior motive, but that she's a professional actor, right?



From what I see in the video, they are more or less walking adjacent to one another. At no point is one in front of or behind the other in the fashion you are describing. Maybe a slight bit here or there, but they are walking adjacent to one another, not one in front and the other in back. If that's how you see this, your bias is stronger than I thought.

As for the last line, refer to the first response above regarding sarcasm.




sevenstringj said:


> Creationists conveniently "don't see" transitional fossils. So you're in good company.



I'm not the one fabricating an entirely different "reality" for that video with all the guys just being normal, nice guys trying to wish a sincere hello and good day, so we can't put _me_ in the creationist camp here. Try again.




sevenstringj said:


> Only you accused me of trolling, and only after I refuted you. And you've taken my rebuttals quite seriously, thank you very much.  Further evidence that crying "ur trolling" is just your excuse for losing an argument.



Your stating your opinion as fact and presenting some fabricated story line doesn't mean you're winning anything. If you truly believe that, I feel sorry for you in real life.




sevenstringj said:


> ...and refuted them point-by-point.



You have ignored many points I've made in this thread, so here we go again with the hype.




sevenstringj said:


> Another bald-faced lie. There was no discussion of that video. Certainly YOU were nowhere to be found.  Go ahead and hotlink/quote yourself if I'm wrong.
> 
> So I posted it in a reply directly to you and you conveniently ignored it AGAIN. Obviously you want to blow it off as "nothing of significance" because your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" is purely rhetoric. (That's a nice way of saying you're full of shit and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I.e., trolling.)



Perhaps it was a different video. There have been so many copy cat videos since the original came out that I can't (and don't care to try) to keep them straight. Either way, the point wasn't worth commenting on, so I passed on it. 

But apparently your ego is so large that my passing on commenting means that I'm full of shit. And that's in addition to being a "social retard", a liar and a troll (in this post alone). And here you were just trying to claim ad hominem against me when I made a valid point regarding your trolling. But then I suppose all this is just more troll bait, though, isn't it?




sevenstringj said:


> Actually, many others agree with me here and elsewhere. And it's not that I have a different opinion. I'm acknowledging facts that you repeatedly and conveniently sweep under the rug.



No, you're creating "facts" to support your position. But you still only have a difference of opinion. Nothing more.


----------



## McKay (Nov 7, 2014)




----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 8, 2014)

tedtan said:


> First, the sarcasm is only due to your own. Any time you want to drop the sarcasm and hyperbole and discuss the issue like adults, I'm game. Otherwise, learn to take it if you're going to dish it out.


So you use sarcasm only because I did!? That makes you a big baby.  And for the record, I have no problem with sarcasm, just that you use it to blow off inconvenient facts.  Of course it didn't work, so you tried tap dancing:



tedtan said:


> Second, I've never claimed that walking around for 10 hours straight is normal, with or without speaking to people. It's a given that she was walking around for the purpose of the filming (which you dismissed earlier), so much so that it should go without saying (repeatedly). In fact, I'm not sure what _relevant_ point you're trying to make by repeating this argument over and over.
> 
> Additionally, I'd be willing to bet that at any give time, anywhere from 30% to 50% of the people walking around in New York are just trying to get to wherever they're going without being harassed along the way.


Nice little routine there.  You put the word abnormal in quotes, which alone means you don't consider it abnormal, and used it to describe the _intent_, while I'm describing the _behavior_. So once again, you get your own drivel fu_c_ked up.  To reiterate, walking around in public in a busy city for 10 hours while being mute no matter who talks to you or what they say, is abnormal behavior. And the point is simply that no one harassed her; she engaged in abnormal antisocial behavior specifically to put guys in awkward situations... and in 10 hours wandering around a busy city day & night, she succeeded once or twice. 



tedtan said:


> From what I see in the video, they are more or less walking adjacent to one another. At no point is one in front of or behind the other in the fashion you are describing. Maybe a slight bit here or there, but they are walking adjacent to one another, not one in front and the other in back. If that's how you see this, your bias is stronger than I thought.


 You're a riot. Since I gave you the timestamps, you can't deny that she was lagging and then sped up to pull ahead of him for the camera, so you try to recharacterize what I said and fog it over with "more or less" and "your bias." 



tedtan said:


> I'm not the one fabricating an entirely different "reality" for that video with all the guys just being normal, nice guys trying to wish a sincere hello and good day, so we can't put _me_ in the creationist camp here. Try again.


It must be opposite day. (Or national troll day?) You were caught lying multiple times about plain facts--even lying about your own & others' posts --but I'm the one "fabricating an entirely different reality." Yeah, you and creationists are like peas and carrots. 



tedtan said:


> You have ignored many points I've made in this thread, so here we go again with the hype.


Yeah, well, your "points" kinda hit a brick wall. 



tedtan said:


> Perhaps it was a different video. There have been so many copy cat videos since the original came out that I can't (and don't care to try) to keep them straight. Either way, the point wasn't worth commenting on, so I passed on it.


And the fog rolls in again. 



tedtan said:


> But apparently your ego is so large that my passing on commenting means that I'm full of shit. And that's in addition to being a "social retard", a liar and a troll (in this post alone). And here you were just trying to claim ad hominem against me when I made a valid point regarding your trolling. But then I suppose all this is just more troll bait, though, isn't it?


"Passing on commenting" Evading a critical point multiple times does suggest that you're full of shit. 

And btw, I just used the search function to quickly isolate your posts, and lo and behold, you said NOTHING characterizing women's behavior like that of the men in this video as "harassment" or "condemning this behavior universally." So not only was your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" just rhetoric, it was a complete fabrication altogether.  Again, feel free to hotlink/quote yourself if I'm wrong.





tedtan said:


> No, you're creating "facts" to support your position. But you still only have a difference of opinion. Nothing more.


Given your track record of lying, even going so far as to lie about your own posts and others' posts, you're in no position to accuse anyone of "creating facts" or "making stuff up" or any of your cheap attempts to play hot potato with all the L's you've been taking.  Your "opinion" isn't even really an opinion, just some mantra you type over and over because you got a lil' captain in you.


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 9, 2014)

protest said:


> Not all of that behavior was normal. I've never followed a girl around asking her why she wouldn't talk me because that's creepy.


He wasn't following her any less than she was following him. They happened to be going the same way and he tried to chat her up. That's not creepy. She even smirked a bit at his self-depricating attempt.



protest said:


> I've never said "damn girl" right at someone's face


Neither did anyone in the video. Unless you'd like to clarify "right at someone's face?"



protest said:


> or yelled "hey beautiful" because that's rude. I don't find that as being normal behavior.


All sorts of rude behavior is quite normal, especially in NYC.  Either way, it's not harassment, which is the real point.



protest said:


> But I agree that there's things in there that are made to look worse than they really are. When you add "Hi have a nice night" kind of stuff in with some rude and creepy dudes it makes that comment seem a lot different, which is disingenuous. I said have a nice night to a dude last night that held a door for me. I don't think that was harassment. That said, I would not dismiss the other instances as being taken out of context, or normal just because the creator was somewhat dishonest in the portrayal of some of the other examples. Certain things don't really need context in order to set off your "Eww Radar."


I went to great pains to consider each scenario precisely because I know the intent was disingenuous and subversive.  The only thing that set off my "eww" radar, with or without the disingenuous context, was the guy who said "godddddd blessssss you mami, damnnnnnnnnnnnnnn." Just the way he said it, all melodramatic and shit.  But that's not harassment. 

There's really only 1 thing this video proves, and it's something I think everyone can agree on:


----------



## tedtan (Nov 10, 2014)

sevenstringj said:


> So you use sarcasm only because I did!? That makes you a big baby.



When you treat people with respect, you'll typically be treated with respect in turn. When you treat people with attitude, you'll typically receive attitude in turn. That doesn't make people babies, it makes them people.

You'd do well to learn that the way you present yourself and your argument are at least as important as the actual argument itself in terms of how people will perceive you and, in turn, how well your argument will be perceived and how those people will treat you.




sevenstringj said:


> And for the record, I have no problem with sarcasm, just that you use it to blow off inconvenient facts.  Of course it didn't work



Of course that wouldn't work, there were no facts presented, only your opinion which, for some odd reason, you seem incapable of separating from fact.




sevenstringj said:


> so you tried tap dancing: Nice little routine there.



Nope. Unfortunately, aside from some very basic slow dancing with the ladies, I can't dance to save my life. My purpose was not to evade, but to do a bit of prodding in order to determine why you keep repeating the phrase "abnormal antisocial behavior" in nearly every post you've made over the past several pages of this thread, but have never bother to justify why you think it is a relevant point. And it worked, but we'll get to that shortly.




sevenstringj said:


> You put the word abnormal in quotes, which alone means you don't consider it abnormal, and used it to describe the _intent_, while I'm describing the _behavior_.



Once again, incorrect. My putting the word abnormal in quotation marks means that I was quoting what you said. That's how it works when not using the quote function.




sevenstringj said:


> she engaged in abnormal antisocial behavior specifically to put guys in awkward situations



And here we finally get to what I was prodding for: you apparently believe that her behavior was intended to CREATE awkward situations. What you fail to see, once again, is context.

I can point out that it is statistically abnormal behavior to carry a handgun in NYC and then point you to thousands of New York's finest who do so every day. And based on the video posted in this thread, we can say it is apparently bnormal behavior to wear a suit in NYC, but head over to Wall St. and you'll encounter more Brooks Brothers and J. Press three button, rolled collar sack suits than you can count. And what about those animal loving documentarians that head over to Africa and not only fail to jump in to save the gazelle from being eaten alive by lions, but instead end up filming it from the sidelines and making that film available for all to see?

So while walking around for 10 hours without speaking to people may be "abnormal antisocial behavior" for the average Joe walking around in NYC (or anywhere else, for that matter), that has nothing to do with the intent of this film. It's purpose was to document the unprovoked, unsolicited responses of guys on the streets of NYC towards the lady walking down the street, NOT to document conversations with them. 

This film is obviously intended to present the female side of the story; that goes without saying. And there are flaws in the way it was shot - as I've said many time in this thread, the selection of the actress and the locations to film appear to be racial profiling. And the film appears to have been shot during the day when most normal people are working. But walking around without speaking to people is not a flaw that can be claimed against the film. That holds up in context (as I pointed out a couple of pages back).




sevenstringj said:


> You're a riot. Since I gave you the timestamps, you can't deny that she was lagging and then sped up to pull ahead of him for the camera, so you try to recharacterize what I said and fog it over with "more or less" and "your bias."



No recharacterizing or fogging over here. Again, I was merely engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum to get you to elaborate as to why you believe she was following him.

If this were a football game, the ruling on the field would be that he was following her. After you throw in your challenge flag, the ref would review the film (and keep in mind he only has this film to review as the uncut film is unavailable at this point to my knowledge), so he comes back with the call that the ruling on the field stands. Why? Because there is simply not enough evidence that she was following him in that film.

Sure that scene cuts in abruptly. Sure there is some variation in the walking speed of both people. And sure the film is designed to present things from the female perspective, so it may be edited in such a way as to appear completely different in the final film than what it was in real life. But at the same time, this film won't be winning any awards for cinematography, so there is no reason to believe that the editing skills involved in this project are any better than the camera skills on display.

So at the end of the day, maybe your position will be proven correct if the uncut film becomes available, but there is simply not enough evidence available at this point to support your position.




sevenstringj said:


> It must be opposite day. (Or national troll day?) You were caught lying multiple times about plain facts--even lying about your own & others' posts --but I'm the one "fabricating an entirely different reality." Yeah, you and creationists are like peas and carrots.



Opposite Day - I remember that! We used to say that when we were 5 or 6 years old. Then we grew up.

As for your continued assertions that you've caught me lying, first you haven't because I have not lied, and second, if you want to make the claim, the onus is on you to prove it true. Yet you have yet to do so.

Why do think that is?




sevenstringj said:


> Yeah, well, your "points" kinda hit a brick wall.



Yes, the limits of your intellectual capacity (you have to admit, you set yourself up for that one). 




sevenstringj said:


> "Passing on commenting" Evading a critical point multiple times does suggest that you're full of shit.



What critical point, that you 1) don't believe these comments are harassment, and 2) wouldn't mind receiving them yourself? Not only is that not a critical point, but your personal feelings are not even germane.




sevenstringj said:


> And btw, I just used the search function to quickly isolate your posts, and lo and behold, you said NOTHING characterizing women's behavior like that of the men in this video as "harassment" or "condemning this behavior universally." So not only was your equal opportunity condemnation of "harassment" just rhetoric, it was a complete fabrication altogether.  Again, feel free to hotlink/quote yourself if I'm wrong.



You failed at search then, because they are there for your edification any time you care to look them up. Here's a hint - some of them are in this very thread, so you don't even have to use that search function that apparently befuddles you so.

Just don't expect others to do your homework for you. If you want to make the claim that I'm lying, the onus is on you to prove it true, not on me to defend myself from your libelous claims.

But then we both know you won't do that, because doing so will prove me right and you a troll.




sevenstringj said:


> Given your track record of lying, even going so far as to lie about your own posts and others' posts, you're in no position to accuse anyone of "creating facts" or "making stuff up" or any of your cheap attempts to play hot potato with all the L's you've been taking.  Your "opinion" isn't even really an opinion, just some mantra you type over and over because you got a lil' captain in you.



Nice try, but you have been the one repeating your two basic talking points over and over ad nauseum in what appears to be an effort to convince yourself that they're true. While that may be a good way to bullshit yourself, I'm not falling for it.

Once again, if you want to make the claim that I'm lying, prove it.


----------



## asher (Nov 10, 2014)

One: in no way is walking around a big city ignoring everyone abnormal. It's _how most people move through cities_. It's certainly how I do.

Two: *It's completely irrelevant*. Those guys don't know whether she's been out for ten hours or ten minutes. The only information they have is that they see an attractive woman walking. How long she's been out has no impact on how they respond *because that's information they don't even know.*

What if they'd been 60 different ten-minute clips, spliced together, of her walking around NYC? We'd still have ten hours of footage, just not all shot at the same time. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, suddenly, we wouldn't see guys doing anything at all? Or are you going to try to claim that walking for ten minutes not talking to anyone is abnormal?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 11, 2014)

Ok, I cannot be silent about this matter anymore.

Between this new video arising (link below), and the "Catcalling in New York" video, I HAVE TO SAY something.

These videos are NOT conducted by sociologists, psychologists, or any communication experts. These videos are conducted by a group of hipster students who consulted a book or online source and then run with a singular idea.

These videos are an exercise in feminism by trying to put down the male population and make a larger and larger portion of the male population seem like creeps, douches, stalkers, etc. In fact, look at the way it is worded. Through a fallacious overgeneralization, these videos in which you only see the "bad" deeds, no focus on the "good" deeds" attack men and try to attribute negative characteristics to every single man.

I, for one, will not put up with this bullshit anymore. It genuinely pisses me off that it is giving all men a bad name when it is only a small handful in a shit part of a city and the film-makers intentionally try to set up the worst possible circumstances and then twist them. (LOOK WHERE THEY ARE IN THE VIDEOS!) It is twisted perceptions like this that have made it so that as a man, I (and my fellow men) cannot approach a woman and say "hello" or "what's up" without being immediately labeled as a creep, douche, stalker, etc. with nonexistent intentions. 

I, for one, have NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, cat-called a woman or tried to take advantage of a drunk woman...especially in such a quote/unquote "cringe-worthy" manner according to whomever wrote this.

Rant f**king over.

https://www.yahoo.com/style/hot-on-the-heels-of-the-viral-catcalling-102374663558.html


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 11, 2014)

asher said:


> One: in no way is walking around a big city ignoring everyone abnormal. It's _how most people move through cities_. It's certainly how I do.


It is when people talk to you. And "how you do" is not how everyone else do. 



asher said:


> Two: *It's completely irrelevant*. Those guys don't know whether she's been out for ten hours or ten minutes. The only information they have is that they see an attractive woman walking. How long she's been out has no impact on how they respond *because that's information they don't even know.*
> 
> What if they'd been 60 different ten-minute clips, spliced together, of her walking around NYC? We'd still have ten hours of footage, just not all shot at the same time. Are you honestly trying to tell me that, suddenly, we wouldn't see guys doing anything at all? Or are you going to try to claim that walking for ten minutes not talking to anyone is abnormal?


Nah, but you'd probably fall asleep before the 3rd person said hi.



tedtan said:


> When you treat people with respect, you'll typically be treated with respect in turn. When you treat people with attitude, you'll typically receive attitude in turn. That doesn't make people babies, it makes them people.
> 
> You'd do well to learn that the way you present yourself and your argument are at least as important as the actual argument itself in terms of how people will perceive you and, in turn, how well your argument will be perceived and how those people will treat you.


You think your dishonesty and indignation merit respect. That's the first problem.  The second problem is, vacuous, diversionary & _admittedly vindictive_ sarcasm is definitely not a "people" thing, especially for those who ride in on their high horse making proclamations on etiquette and "holding yourself to a higher standard." 



tedtan said:


> Of course that wouldn't work, there were no facts presented, only your opinion which, for some odd reason, you seem incapable of separating from fact.


That she lagged & sped up to get ahead of homeboy is fact. I even cited the timestamps. So that makes another lie, albeit so childish and transparent as to border on insulting.



tedtan said:


> Nope. Unfortunately, aside from some very basic slow dancing with the ladies, I can't dance to save my life. My purpose was not to evade, but to do a bit of prodding in order to determine why you keep repeating the phrase "abnormal antisocial behavior" in nearly every post you've made over the past several pages of this thread, but have never bother to justify why you think it is a relevant point. And it worked, but we'll get to that shortly.
> 
> Once again, incorrect. My putting the word abnormal in quotation marks means that I was quoting what you said. That's how it works when not using the quote function.
> 
> ...


At least "harassment" is nowhere to be found in this meandering drivel. We're making progress. 



tedtan said:


> No recharacterizing or fogging over here. Again, I was merely engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum to get you to elaborate as to why you believe she was following him.
> 
> If this were a football game, the ruling on the field would be that he was following her. After you throw in your challenge flag, the ref would review the film (and keep in mind he only has this film to review as the uncut film is unavailable at this point to my knowledge), so he comes back with the call that the ruling on the field stands. Why? Because there is simply not enough evidence that she was following him in that film.


Or that he was following her.



tedtan said:


> Sure that scene cuts in abruptly. Sure there is some variation in the walking speed of both people. And sure the film is designed to present things from the female perspective, so it may be edited in such a way as to appear completely different in the final film than what it was in real life. But at the same time, this film won't be winning any awards for cinematography, so there is no reason to believe that the editing skills involved in this project are any better than the camera skills on display.
> 
> So at the end of the day, maybe your position will be proven correct if the uncut film becomes available, but there is simply not enough evidence available at this point to support your the filmmakers' position, since they're the ones claiming "harassment" and presenting "evidence."


Fixed.



tedtan said:


> Opposite Day - I remember that! We used to say that when we were 5 or 6 years old. Then we grew up.
> 
> As for your continued assertions that you've caught me lying, first you haven't because I have not lied, and second, if you want to make the claim, the onus is on you to prove it true. Yet you have yet to do so.
> 
> ...








You said "everyone else discussed" the video I (and kamello) posted and that you had "condemned this behavior universally." I looked back and saw you didn't; I CAN'T QUOTE SHIT THAT DOESN'T EXIST.  Those are lies you concocted to sidestep the response video and its point.

Now while I can't quote shit you didn't say to prove you didn't say it, you're more than welcome to quote a couple sentences of people supposedly "discussing" the video I & kamello posted, and quote where you supposedly "had been condemning this behavior universally."

Or you could just grow a pair and address the video. Either way...


----------



## sevenstringj (Nov 11, 2014)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Ok, I cannot be silent about this matter anymore.
> 
> Between this new video arising (link below), and the "Catcalling in New York" video, I HAVE TO SAY something.
> 
> ...


 They were like "wait, we gotta make sure to film white people too this time, so people don't think we're, y'know, RACIST 'unintentionally racially biased.' wink! wink!"


----------

