UKC

A friend shared this on facebook, and it made me remember talking to a friend of another friend, who said that it can often be a dilemma when complimented or cat called in the street as to how to respond, from not knowing whether accepting it graciously might lead somebody on, compared to whether showing displeasure or ignoring it might encourage a negative reacting - with the guy giving the compliment potentially being a nutter,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/women-are-spat-on-chased-and-hit-by-c...

In reply to Timmd:

Cat calling in the street isn’t what many (decent) men think it is. It isn’t being nice to a woman; it’s about power. It’s about controlling the public space as a male domain and policing the appearance of lone women in that domain. It’s about certain men thinking their opinion on a woman’s appearance matters – whether it’s a complimentary comment or a fat-shaming comment makes no difference. This is why many (decent) men don’t think it really happens, or don’t think it’s serious if it does: because a woman walking down the street with a man is ‘owned’ already and the cat-caller doesn’t see an opportunity to assert his dominance. Most (decent) men probably don’t see it because it doesn’t happen in front of them. This is also why, as a woman, you definitely do have a dilemma about how to respond to these incidents – because someone wanting to assert power over you is an unpredictable thing to deal with.

Then you get the situation where the good blokes think they’re not supposed to ever give a woman a compliment any more, but that isn’t what street harassment is about. We need to be more clear about what harassment really entails, so that all the millions of good men recognise that this isn’t them and start calling out the unacceptable behaviour when they see it.

In reply to Alyson:

I wish the people who have disliked your comment had the courage to explain why they disliked it.

In reply to Alyson:
It happens at the crag, a few years ago i was climbing at stanage with my Ex . I was at the top belaying and three men walking past stopped and just blatantly stared. No they werent just admiring her climbing style it was that leering look that you cant mistake for anything else. A quick shout of "Take a F**king photo it will last longer" quickly had them scurrying off.

In reply to lummox:


Absolutely. If not, we can just assume that their sweaty, trembling hands slipped and they clicked the wrong button.

In reply to lummox:

Same here. I guess I only really posted it because I have 2 small nieces, and being male I've had freedom from the what can be the worrying uncertainty of being cat called in the street, and I can't see why they shouldn't as well.

I'm presuming the dislikes could be due to disliking something seen as being something feminism related, but whatever anybody thinks of feminism and feminists (philosophically - I guess there's no 'right opinion' when people are free to think whatever they want), I still don't quite see why my nieces* shouldn't have freedom from what can be the worrying uncertainty which I've always enjoyed. So I thought I'd try and explore the subject.

* And other females too...

In reply to Timmd:

If people choose not to explain their dislikes on forums, which are specifically there for the purpose of debate, I think we should be free to assume what they mean. I'm assuming that they're terrified by the feeling of all those centuries of acquired privilege crumbling between their fingers and beneath their feet because they're unadaptable dinosaurs, and we all know what happened to the dinosaurs. But, of course, assumptions can be wrong - if only one of them would correct me.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Disliking a post making a reasoned argument about a serious issue while failing to reply with a counterargument tends to imply the disliker simply has no counterargument.

In reply to Alyson:

Not totally on topic, but related, I often wonder how best to deal with situations where I end up alone with a women in a public place, where I'm aware that my presence may be perceived by them as threatening. For example, many years ago I was alone with a women late at night at a tube station, not helped by the fact that I'm sure it was the actress Sarah Lancashire, so I was probably gawping a bit. I didn't know whether to say something reassuring or keep my mouth shut, so did the latter. Recently I was starting to cycle down a Cotswolds hill and the heavy tree canopy and shitty road surface caused me to stop and take my sunglasses off. There was a woman running down the hill about 30 yards ahead, it was really spooky and I was acutely aware that it would seem really strange and unsettling to her, and I felt like shouting "I'm just taking my sunglasses off, I can't see a thing!", but decided to keep shtum. I've asked friends about it and had different views. Maybe I'm overthinking it. What's your view?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I havent disliked it as its a good point, but it would read better for me if the most (decent) men, and many (decent) men part was replaced with 'some men'.

If you find cat calling acceptable - you aren't a 'decent' man at all, but you are an immature prick.

If you don't think it happens or isn't serious - see above.

I agree its difficult to know what to do for the best when it does happen - (the affected person and e.g: me the passer by witnessing it) Muppet Filter's comment to embarrass them was good, but some knuckle scrapers are liable to get defensive/aggressive when you call them out for what they are.

In reply to Bellie:



Alyson didn't say decent men find it acceptable, and I would agree with your summary.


I dunno, some good people, myself included, are capable of massive empathy failures, especially on something we have absolutely zero first-hand experience of.


There are nutters out there indeed. No one else is to blame if they react badly, but that's no comfort if you're being emotionally, verbally and/or physically attacked by them as a result.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Sorry I read 'some men don't see it' as in some men don't see the problem in it.

So point taken.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

If you find yourself walking behind a woman, make sure to match their pace, so they don't get embarrassed about walking too quickly or too slow, and if they look round make sure to duck behind the nearest front garden so they get a clear view of any ne'er do wells who might be behind you.

In reply to Alyson:

Good post. Two questions:

I (a man) do rarely hear cat calls these days but you say that is expected. Have often do you (or other women) experience cat calls or similar?

I don't think i would ever comment to a woman (or man) on their appearance unasked if I didn't know them very well. It would just feel intrusive. But you say compliments are OK. Where to you draw the line - for instance what about the Proudman affair? The compliment directed at her appeared boorish (but not controlling as per your post) to me but her reaction way, way over the top.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


At last some decent advice!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Maybe you are over thinking it, but that's better than not caring. There isn't a 'right' answer because women will have had different experiences and may or may not be unsettled by certain behaviours. A cheery "hello" is always fine by me, but I understand Londoners don't speak to strangers so maybe down there it would mark you out as a weirdo.

As long as you don't expose your manhood or attempt to wrestle the woman to the ground you're on the right track

In reply to MG:

I think incidences of catcalling have declined - but this could be because I am no longer 20 with dyed blonde hair and legs which looked ok in a skirt. Now I'm usually to be seen with my small person (very effective shield), and neglected appearance. I mostly get shouted at from vans when I'm on my bike, and I have no idea what they're saying. Probably once every couple of months now, compared to once a week ish 15 years ago.

I think Proudman's main gripe was that LinkedIn is a professional network, she was presenting herself as a credible professional and this is undermined by someone sending her a message about her appearance. I wouldn't have reacted nearly as strongly as she did but I don't know her background. Maybe she'd had years of struggling to be taken seriously, or bosses hitting on her. Who knows. I was at uni with a girl who, on the first night we went clubbing together, spun round and slapped a man grinding up behind her. I wouldn't have done that either, though it made me wonder why not. I'm fairly passive I guess.

In reply to lummox:

Because it would enrage the UKC thought police.

In reply to MG:

The Proudman affair?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

She was using her wiles to recruit 'learned friends' to fluff up her LinkedIn profile. She contacted him first, remember, with no prior professional contact.

He was an idiot to fall for it.

In reply to lummox:


youtube.com/watch?v=75aX9mlipiY&

In reply to Alyson:


I think the last time I complimented a girl was in 1991. I sometimes see women who take my breath away, but I'm sure they don't want any attention from me, however innocent my intentions might be.

In reply to Alyson:

Some times it'll be about power and control. Sometimes it'll be something else. A guy showing off in front of is mates, for example. Just doing it because other people do it, or because they find it funny, or a bit exciting. Also, some women do like it (at least sometimes).

In reply to lummox:
I disliked it just now in actual fact.

First I object to the "decent" label. It seems to imply all men and that those of us who don't do it may also think it's "nice. I've never felt the urge catcall anyone in my life.

But more than anything the post sounded like pseudo intellectual bs with references to "power", "controlling public space" etc. etc. I'm sure it's straight out of a social sciences syllabus so I guess it does qualify as intellectual. But it over analyses the issue. I don't think cat calling is anything more than neanderthal behaviour akin to kids tapping the glass on an aquarium hoping to attract the attention of the fish. It's blokes showing off to each other more than anything else: "look I spotted a bird, and she turned around and acknowledged me, aren't I masculine!". It's making sure you fit in in the hyper-masculine culture if a building site and no one instead accuses you of being gay, girlie, not one of the boys etc. And at the end of the days it's just the opposite side of the same coin which sees females resort to catty, bitchy and obnoxious behaviour to each other.

In reply to David Martin:

So you don't think power has anything to do with it, but you use instead as your analogy some helpless fish in a tank and a child tapping on the glass (an action which distresses the fish). If you think that's a better analogy, fine, it sounds like the same analogy to me. Have you read the article linked in the OP? Women shouldn't have to choose between giving a man the attention he wants or getting run over.

In reply to Alyson:

I get that too - from men and women. Odd behaviour.



As some one else said, I suspect there was rather a lot going on there, with Proudman probably waiting to pounce. Regardless, I think it does highlight that commplimenting people on their appearance isn't really acceptable. I don't find this surprising or a problem - as I said it would feel intrusivee to me. However, equally it means trying to say cat calling is bad but compliments OK is incorrect, and if there is a difference, it is not very clear cut.

In reply to MG:

Well all women are going to react differently - we don't have a Meeting of the Sisterhood once a week to discuss how we'll handle everything. I didn't particularly follow the Proudman thing but if she did reach out first hoping to make a useful business connection and got some reply about being beautiful I can see why that might annoy her. Other people might be less offended.

In reply to Timmd:
This is an interesting thread. Ive never been one of those leering types but you see them all over. Im lucky that I'm married to a very beautiful woman and she gets it all the time when she's with me so goodness knows what it must be like when I'm not there. Ive had to bite my tongue many times but I came to realise that she doesnt need my protection and it would cause more problems that it solves.

My main issue is that of my daughter. She has grown quickly into a beautiful young woman and she's taller than me now. She's also only 14. I get very annoyed at the letching over her by grown men, sometimes in their 30s or older. I clearly want her to become independent and strong minded and able to deal with this behaviour but my sense of protection is overwhelming when I see it.

As a man watching this stuff go on in front of your eyes with family members its difficult to know how to react.

In reply to lummox:

Children dislike things to be naughty but wont say. Morons dislike things but struggle with ... (what's that word again?). Old school sexists dislike thimgs but are usually cowards and prefer to plot in secret and to get their power kicks when people can't fight back.

Dislikes are a blight on UKC.. they encourage bad behaviour with no consequence, the exact sort of thing the site says its not about in the guidelines.

In reply to Bootrock:

I think that says it all Bootrock.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Does it show the bit where he admonishes the catcallers and gets spat at and called a lesbian or told aggressively that he knows he wants it?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
You obviously haven't been near any hen party in any pub in any town.

And You try telling an angry drunk woman/women to stop lifting your kilt, and see what responses you get.

In reply to Offwidth:


Heaven forbid someone holds a different opinion to your own!
Pressing the dislike button on an Internet forum definitely encourages bad behaviour, I think I may go and slap a few old ladies, speed, and steal some stuff.

What's with you lot and these likes/dislikes? If anything, If I see a lot of dislikes on my post, then I see my job is done. Especially with you lot.

It's just a quick way to air an opinion. Without awaiting a barrage of mind control, thought police responses.

Get over it, we can't all like and dislike the same things. People hold different opinions and debate them. That's the whole point of a "forum". It would be pretty boring if we just agreed, and proceeded to out do each other with stories of how liberal and diverse we can be, like some kind of liberal snowflake Olympics.

In reply to Offwidth:


I'm not sure most disliking involves much plotting or power kicks, but I guess there is a fair bit of disliking when cognitive dissonance hits.

By the by, do you think this logic applies to my much disliked but unreplied to post of 00:15?

In reply to Bootrock:


I have actually, and not been overly bothered. Still, even if i had, it's hardly an everyday occurrence is it?


Another perfect everyday example we can all relate to.

In reply to Bootrock:

Since I'm interested in discussion between climbers (having been on UKC from pretty much its beginning) I clearly welcome intelligent disagreement or even better a nuance between full support and total opposition.

Dislikes are junk(y) information for the childish, unintelligent and short of attention. They usually say nothing outside the mind and ego of the disliker. If someone dislikes and explains why, what extra information does the button provide. If they dont say why unless the post is a simple phase no one has the faintest clue what they are disliking. Negativity for its own sake is corrosive and does lead to bulling.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

What post? Cognitive dissonance dislikes are arguably part chiildish and part unintelligent. A dislike is similar to the cat call in that sense... a sense of power with no comeback. If they expressed themselves someone might point out a logical fallacy and make them look a fool.

On UKB karma is attibuted to the person who gives it and requires a reason. Most karma is positive. Its hardly like the place is no fun as a result of attributed liking and disliking. UKC is really tight on moderation in some respects but allows too much low level crap that a karma system would deal with: I beleive the forums would be a lot more friendly and helpful as a result.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


So because it's not happened to you, it doesn't happen at all, and because it's not an everyday occurrence, it's acceptable?

There was me thinking it was about eradicating street harassment.



It could well be. Surely the regularity of such things shouldn't be an issue, it's either wrong or it's not.
You can't pick and choose.



So basically, it's acceptable when it's women doing it, and unless you have seen in, it doesn't happen?

Can you say hypocrisy?

In reply to Offwidth:


One I made at 00:15. It wasn't in reply to you. Just genuinely interested in your perspective on those dislikes, as they're from (I guess) people that think I'm being a bit sexist or something. Do you think they're being childish or on some kind of power trip?

To save you looking, I wrote, "Some times it'll be about power and control. Sometimes it'll be something else. A guy showing off in front of is mates, for example. Just doing it because other people do it, or because they find it funny, or a bit exciting. Also, some women do like it (at least sometimes)."


Yes


Sometimes dislikes are like that. Sometimes cat calls are. Sometimes they're both about something else or not much at all. Personally, I don't dislike comments from anyone I'm in a discussion with. I'll occasionally dislike a comment if I think it's a rubbish comment for whatever reason and can't be bothered to argue, or someone else has already made the point I would make. There's genuinely no plotting or power tripping involved on my part.

I think you're right, though, that we'd probably be better off without them.

In reply to Offwidth:


And the like and dislike function is a quick glance of people's opinions.
I have liked and disliked on this thread, and I have offered my thoughts on it. Where is the problem?



Well I am glad you can make such sweeping generalisations about people. I am glad you can find out so much about me, my attitudes and who I am with a simple dislike.
Usually it's you lefties that try and tell us not to make generalisations.
Maybe someone is at work, and uses the dislike button as a short term input to the discussion.
Maybe the points have already been raised, and a like button is used to show support for that statement rather than repeating a point.

They aren't supposed to show anything other than a quick glance show of support or disagreement.
If you want more than that, read through the posts.

It's not negativity. It's agreeing or disagreeing. To think the like/dislike function is bullying, is literally the most absurd, backwards, pedantic and sad way of thinking.
Despite what the regressive left think, disagreeing and discussion can be an overall positive experience. You can't police how people think, or what people like/dislike or disagree and agree on.

I probably get a lot of dislikes purely because it's me, and I tend to lean away from a lot of you lots opinions. And sometimes I like to play devils advocate.Do you see me crying in a corner? No. It's an Internet forum. And you can't please everyone, nor do I want to.

Disagreement and debate is good, it can reinforce your opinion, or change your opinion.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

I'd missed you meant your post in this thread! I both don't know and feel that guessing specific motivations behind specific guessed meanings is maybe all a bit of a fruitless analysis.

Have you thought about the fact that when you do dislike its rare anyone will know why? Words are wonderful tools it's a shame people will choose a black and white digital response to carefully argued and often extensive posts. As for shorter more obvious crap, UKB style negative karma works much better with the who and why all perfectly clear (and if people pretend stuff is crap when its not they can get picked up on it)

In reply to Bootrock:


It is in fact the main issue. The rate of which these incidents happen to women will be a factor of tens if not hundreds more than they happen to men, so much though that some women have to worry about it. That's before we get on to the usual power imbalance when it's men heckling women due to simple physical size and strength.

There is no equivalence to be found here.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Of course there is equivilence, I posted a video of the guy walking around NYC and experiencing the same amount of street harassment from men and women, as a woman.

So you want equality, but only on your terms. You can't pick and choose, it's either wrong or it's not.

Instead of battling against all street harassment and encouraging a healthy attitude to viewing all people in public, we are just going to focus on the women.

So you are saying, it is acceptable for men to experience street harassment.

According to the NHS men amount to about 40% of domestic abuse victims. With your way of thinking, because it doesn't happen at the same level of women, we should just ignore it?

In reply to Bootrock:

Its not anything of the sort. Its almost always a tiny anonymous quantitative output from a large sample with no qualitative information. The most common useful output I've seen is anti dislike posts get disliked as a good cheap joke. Karma is very different in all those respects. Use of something that gives no information is hardly clever or adult so I feel the generalisations are worthwhile.

I fail to see what my politics has to do with anything and if you want to pigeon hole I'm way more centre than left.

It can and does involve issues of negativity (including bulkying), people have researched it and published papers and Facebook decided not to use it as a result (after flirting with the idea). The fact its far from the most serious issue in this respect on the internet is niether here nor there.

I agree with your last point entirely if the person disagreed with has a chance of understanding why and is receptive to change. Dislikes prevent the former and create a more divisive atmosphere which discourages the latter.

In reply to Offwidth:



So you can generalise me, and make insulting comments about me, because I pressed a like button, yet you don't like me pigeon holing you and making a generalisation about you?

You are lucky I am not a special little snowflake! I would be taking offence!




Facebook is hardly a place to look. People get facebook syndrome and virtue signal, and they think liking a post actually has some sort of meaning rather than giving them a warm fuzzy feeling of thinking like they have done something. Here's an idea, maybe Facebook have hidden agenda to not using a dislike button?

Why should we be so sheltered from the fact that sometimes people don't like or agree with us.

I fail to see how you can have a like button, without a dislike button, it's a very watered down version of censorship.

Would you be keen for a different button? An agree/disagree button?
No button at all?
Happy/Sad face button?



I disagree, the first thing I do with any post is look at the likes and dislikes, so see what the general feeling of the post is, if I see a post I agree with, and I see a lot of dislikes, I like to go and explore more the thread and have a look at others posts.

And I have liked posts, then after reading, changed a like to a dislike.

It's a quick glance show of what people agree and disagree with.

In reply to Bootrock:

You appear to have me saying a lot of things I don't remember saying.

In reply to Alyson:



Now you tell me!

As far as getting shouted at while you're cycling, it's not an experience unique to women, although whether more prevelant I don't know. I've been shouted at, gobbed at (autocorrect changed that to gobbled, which would have been preferable), had nuts and bolts thrown at me and had "Fit arse!" and general leering shouted at me by teenaged girls. I think the hatred engendered by being a cyclist far outweighs that of being a woman.

In reply to Offwidth:

And YouTube does have dislikes.

They (and likes) give an overall impression of how a post has been received, something that text replies won't do well. They do add something.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



Here is the point ---> •


Here is you --->



You missed it.

In reply to Bootrock:

In which case you need to be clearer. Your random arguments make you come across like you're determined to disagree no matter what gets put in front of you.

In reply to MG:
You Tube is not the same as UKC and it's public comment interface is a pretty nasty place.

Yes the dislike function adds things... a few statistically insignificant numbers in a red box, placed individually for goodness knows what reasons (including slips on a touch screen) and some gratification for the children. We also know some people will disagree with almost anything (unless they are just clumsy)

In reply to Offwidth:


YouTube comments are evil! Never ceases to amaze me how people can be so vitriolic about the most innocuous things.

In reply to Timmd:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/womens-blog/2016/oct/01/celebrity-consent...

Just been reading this. What a prick.

In reply to Offwidth:

Facebook isn't UKC either. If you are going to use Facebook as example one way, you can't object to YouTube as an example in the other.


Mostly yes. Sometimes they clearly are significant, and interesting.

Your repeated use "children" as a slur is just, well, childish.

In reply to MG:
Go on then show us some analysis on how many UKC posts have meaningful statistical significance (dislikes compared to views).

I'm not using Youtube in contrast to Facebook. I hate any simplistic measures that add no real information and try to fool punters into thinking they make a contribution... and other such marketing stunts. I'd happily see all platforms followed the Facebook example: look at the research and reject the stupid buttons for evidence based reasons.

Children are are they do: give me any convincing reasoning of adult interaction and I'll drop the insult. I can see it with karma but not dislikes.

In reply to Offwidth:


You are doing your usual thing of having reasonable point of view and being able to argue it before going for an entirely unnecessary insult at those who disagree. Ironic here given you want "adult interaction".

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

wellc from your posts, it seems that if a woman sexually assaults me because of the clothes I wear, it's acceptable. Because it might not happen "everyday".

Yet for a man to pay a compliment to a woman in the street, it's a hate crime.


Don't get me wrong, there is a line where a compliment becomes harassment, and it shouldn't be crossed.

And to allude that all men are some kind of sexual deviants and that only "decent men" would find it shocking, it's a big generalisation. If I made the same generalisation that all women are psychos, but "decent" women wouldn't act a certain way, would you find that acceptable?

This constant division and segregation is BS. try to educate that street harassment is wrong, but don't attach this feminazi "all men" undertone to it.

Women are just the same as men.


And there was me thinking that women were equal and don't need special treatment or pampering because they are all strong independent women?

#equalitybutonyourterms

In reply to Bootrock:

Please quote where I have said that harassment of any kind is acceptable. Please quote where I have said that paying someone a complement is a hate crime. Please quote where I have said something that alludes to all men being deviants.

Your argument was that we shouldn't pay particular attention to women being catcalled in the street because it happens to men to and is therefore not a problem of misogyny. My counter-argument was that it comparatively happens so little to men as to not warrant discussion on the same terms. Your counter-argument to that was to pretend that I'd said aggression against men was acceptable, which I clearly haven't. What is the point in debating if you're just going to make shit up?

In reply to Bootrock:


Except when it comes to being victims of domestic violence or sexual assault where they seem to be just so much better at it than us men.

Now that you've used the word "feminazi" can we expect a link to Pepe the Frog in your next post?

In reply to TobyA:

To be fair, nobody has been referencing sexual assault or domestic violence - the debate has been about catcalling, so you can't really counter his argument by referring to them.

In reply to Bootrock:

I'm pretty sure no one has said all men are sexual deviants - surely by definition this involves deviating from the norm.

As for your argument that men and women are the same... what is the worst thing, do you think, that the hugely muscled man in that video can expect to happen to him if he asks a woman to leave him alone? Do you think the level of threat he is experiencing is comparable to a female in the same situation?

In reply to Alyson:

Depends whether it's Goucho's missus or not...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

"It is in fact the main issue. The rate of which these incidents happen to women will be a factor of tens if not hundreds more than they happen to men, so much though that some women have to worry about it."

You didn't allude to it, someone else did.


It happens a lot more than you would be prepared to admit.
No, my counter argument was that you say the main issue is the regularity of it happening. I gave another example of an important issue, and suggested that because it doesn't happen as much, do we still forget about it? Or do we recognise it's a problem for both genders and try and tackle and educate it.

Again. I think you have missed the point.

TobyA: I fear you missed my point with that comment.
Women are the same as men, they are capable of dishing out catcalling and street harassment. They experience attraction and bravado just like men.

I used to work in a mill when I was a young teenager, and some of the comments made by the older women that worked there would have made you lot take a heart attack.

Yanis:
Nobody has yet, however there have been comments made to insinuate that men are salivating sexual deviants with no self control.
And street harassment is one step away from unwanted sexual or physical contact.

I used an example oh men being subject to catcalling or street harassment, and it was brushed over as if it was acceptable or that because it doesn't happen as often, then it's ok. So I decided to kick it up a notch.

If a group of me and my male mates hounded a woman to lift her skirt and give us a flash, you lot would start burning torches and chasing me with a pitch fork.

Yet you somehow seem to think it's acceptable for a group of women to demand I lift my kilt.

It's this sort of trivialisation of issues and segregation that dissilussions people.

Men and women are both subject to compliments but there is a line of street harassment. And is unacceptable. Regardless of gender.

In reply to Alyson:

Well it was you that alluded to t, and proceeded to go on about domanance and control or some such nonsense.

I thought women were equal to men? That's what I keep getting told anyway, yet here you are stating they aren't. Make up your mind.

I don't know if a woman is trained in martial arts, and a knife or a form of weapon can be an equaliser.

Having almost been glassed with a broken bottle, by a woman, I am quite aware of what women are capable of, and I am 6ft 4 and not exactly built like a racing snake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12109805/Student-stabs-man-in-...

In reply to Bootrock:

You're confusing 'being equal' with 'being the same'. Equal means two things have the same value, it doesn't mean they are identical.


So you were unsuccessfully attacked by a woman? I'm not sure whether that story backs up your point or not to be honest. Did she miss? Did you fight her off?

Also, on a wider point, do you genuinely think the problem of street harassment will be easier to deal with if we ignore gender entirely? If so, can you explain why, given the disparity in how often it is experienced by men compared to women?

In reply to Timmd:

I think I hate myself. For the first time, I find myself agreeing with Bootrock.

In reply to Alyson:

Don't, Alyson; this means you're condoning any and all abuse against men.

In reply to Alyson:


If you say so.


Well it's safe to say you missed the point. Considerably.


Yea. I do. I certainly don't think the answer is ignoring and trivialising male street harassment.

If men and women are equal, then why shouldn't the harassment they face be treated equally?

Ah yes, the old equality but on your terms thing.

In reply to Oceanrower:

It's alright mate, I am not a total prick. I appreciate that. I will buy you a rum if ever the two of us shall meet.

In reply to Bootrock:
Only if it's Mount Gay. I've got a bit of a thing for their stuff! Especially the Eclipse.

In reply to Bootrock:

Again, you've missed explaining the fact that it happens so much more to women than men. Have a pop.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I'm not at all. If men and women do it to very different levels and for different reasons, what good does ignoring that do? Do you think any of the women in the video linked above were threatening to the man (or attempting to be threatening?)?

In the original video (the one which that was an 'answer' to) the woman gets followed by one particular guy for 5 minutes, despite clearly not wanting to speak to him. So sending out a blanket message of "don't threaten people in the street" is great except a) the catcalling women aren't threatening the man and b) the catcalling men are less likely to recognise their behaviour as threatening if you equate their actions to a woman doing the same thing.

There was a thread on the front page of askreddit a couple of days ago asking guys how they feel getting catcalled. Overwhelming the responses were 'I like it', 'it's good for my ego', 'I wish it happened more' (fortunately often with the acknowledgement that this probably isn't the same for women). If you persistently claim it's just the same for men and women then you risk legitimising street harassment from men who think 'well I'd be flattered if it happened to me so she should be flattered too'.

In reply to Bootrock:

No, I took your point, I just think you are fundamentally wrong.


Which "lot" would that be exactly? Are we the "liberal snowflake" lot? Be careful though, we can still avalanche, although generally only to the left.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Because some men lack social skills and have too much confidence?

I know plenty of blokes that are far too shy to ever attempt cat calling, and I know plenty of confident blokes that could but they don't.

You can't make a blanket generalisation about all men because of actions of a few. Doesn't mean that all men are sexual deviants who scream up and down the street at the whiff of a vagina.

Regardless of gender street harassment is wrong.

Alyson:

I think MPs comment to you was a sarky comment about posts I had made earlier.

How do you know women catcalling men isn't threatening? Again, have you seen hen parties?
Why is it a social norm for them to harass and encourage sexual contact or harassment for the entertainment of women?

And how do you know blokes aren't intimidated or threatened by a woman/women catcalling? You try telling a group of drunk, angry, fat middle aged women that you aren't going to lift up your kilt...

I am sure if it's explained to men, a lot of men would soon realise that maybe a harmless cat call to them could be misunderstood by a woman.

And what about the women that like getting catcalled? You can't expect to blanket all men one way, and then women the other. I have a female mates that enjoy it/play up to cat calling.

TobyA:

Looks like we disagree, but have a like for that Avalanche remark!

In reply to Alyson:

I don't think comparing men getting cat called with women getting the same is a useful one. Men would mostly enjoy it or be ambivalent, whereas I think women would mostly not enjoy it, or find it threatening. It is hypocritical for women to do it though.

On a related topic, I'm not sure how healthy the constant media message about how difficult women's lives are, how threatening society is to them etc is.

In reply to Alyson:

You either missed the sarcasm in my post or replied to me by mistake. I hope. I 100% agree.

In reply to Bootrock:

Sorry, but, again, where the f*ck did I accuse all men of anything?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Dude you need to chill out, it's a Saturday night. Get yourself a rum.

I was replying to Alyson. You were mentioned in the first bit when I explained that she had maybe misunderstood your post.

...and I thought I was angry.


We haven't even touch on the street harassment from female to male transgenders, or from non binary, gender fluid, Asexual men, or gender queer, pan sexual women who prefer the pronoun "them".

I think it's offensive we all just assumed there's 2 genders. God. Check your privileges.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:



In a very similar situation, in a builder's merchants with my tall, attractive, 14 yr old, daughter I remarked to one bloke, who was nudging his mates an leering; "My daughter is only 13, you must be one of those paedophiles we hear so much about."

Ok, so I told a white lie, but his mates didn't half tear him a new one.

In reply to Bootrock:

Weak troll.

In reply to lummox:


I've not disliked Alyson's post, but I do dislike the assertion that cat calling is about one thing only.

I think when we try to communicate the intention of the communicator is vitally important.

I've met men who genuinely felt they were paying a compliment by cat calling - they did not see their actions as some part of a misogynist master plan.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Chill out mate. You will give yourself a prolapse.

In reply to MG:

Yep as its still childish and adds no information (loads of dislkies only happen where posters write words and say exactly why something is so unpopular). You as ever play rhetorical games (often ad hominen) rather than countering the argument. If I'm so obviously and chlidishly wrong it must be childishly easy to prove.

In reply to Alyson:


I'm keeping the dislike registered, although we may actually be in agreement on the issue. The problem perhaps is in your terms: I'd like to consider myself and those I know "decent", though not necessarily "good", so we appear to have automatically fallen in to your cat-calling/denial criteria which seems completely at odds with my personal experience.

But to keep the analogy going...

...the kids doing the tapping are having what they perceive to be innocent fun, the fish are moderately disturbed, and the parents or aquarium owner can point out the predicament of the fish or tell them to leave. I don't think its a reflection on most children, indicative of seeking power, or a sign that they have destructive and negative stereotypes towards animals, all of which call for some form of collective guilt or correction. Its certainly not destroying aquatic wildlife by drift-netting oceans or pouring industrial effluent in to estuaries and does not require dividing children up in to "good" and "bad/decent" children.

Its spur of the moment behaviour encouraged by the immediate environment a small sub-set of men/kids find themselves in. More than anything else though, it appears to be an attempt at interaction, not an an attempt to exert dominance (and certainly not a conscious one).

In the region of the world I live in, as far as I can tell, cat-calling simply doesn't exist and I get the impression if it was to occur nearly everyone within hearing distance would make their views known - it would be seen as socially boorish behaviour, as is all loud and attention-seeking behaviour. A few thousand km away groping and comments to any passing women seem entirely normal. The UK probably fits somewhere in between. Making it a male problem, or something that most males (I'm assuming most males are "decent") fail to understand, is tarring a hell of a lot of people with a very broad brush and may be missing other underlying causes.

However, you cannot ignore a social context, one that I'll go out on a limb in saying is very much driven in equal measure, if not more so, by women. That is that it seems largely accepted by all genders across our society that it is the male's role to make the initial advances on women (from calling the first date to making the marriage proposal), and it is also expected of a male to compliment women (with no expected reciprocation or initiation by the female). Both may range from subtle, charming, flattering and appreciated to being completely out of order, unwanted, and scary. But as long as spontaneous and unsolicited behaviours are expected from males (and expected by females) the risk of the less socially-endowed males getting those attempts profoundly wrong is always going to exist and heavily weights the scales towards males appearing to have a problem. If you really do want to bring power dynamics in to the discussion, you can't overlook the one that exists to say the shy guy who makes no moves will be sexually unsuccessful and that seizing the initiative is essential.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


That's fine, but we're lucky that now we have women who are stepping forward to express that it's unpleasant to be on the receiving end. Now, in possession of that knowledge, catcallers can decide whether they're happy with intimidating women and/or generally making them feel uncomfortable. I'd venture that if, on that basis, someone decided to carry on catcalling women in the street, that person was a misogynistic dick.

In reply to Timmd:

This is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/07/men-gender-divide-fem...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Shame, when I stood forward and expressed myself that it is unpleasant to be on the receiving end, yet now in the possession of that knowledge you can just brush over it because it "doesn't happen every day".
I would venture that if a woman decided to carry on catcalling men in the street, then we would all ignored her and her misandry.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Feminism doesn't hold the monoply on Gender Equality.

You can believe in gender equality but disagree with third wave feminism.

In reply to David Martin:

Good post.

The "expectation" of the recipient is an entirely subjective matter as well - having just heard a (female) friend recount the "romantic" way she met her current boyfriend - he came up to her as he was leaving a bar and said words to the effect that " she was the most beautiful girl he had seen and he couldn't leave without telling her..."

I have no doubt whatsover that that approach could have had an entirely different response to a different girl or from a different boy - and leaves me none the wiser as to where men stand in this "power balance"...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Perhaps alternatively those women might understand that some men were trying to pay them a compliment and so feel less threatened?

Failed communication between sexes and individuals appears very common. Some of that is due to cultural mismatch, as even within the U.K. There is massive variation in how different groups interact. But more generally there is a base disconnect between men and women, which seems really odd.

In reply to David Martin:

I think we're in agreement too. I suspect the fishtank analogy isn't quite appropriate because we're not talking about curious children who haven't been told that tapping is unpleasant for the fish, we're talking about grown men.

Funnily enough the thing you've moved on to discussing - namely, approaching a woman who you have an interest in - is exactly and precisely what I was talking about in my very first post (the part of it which earned me the dislike!) You are a decent man and you are talking about complimenting a woman because of an interest in getting to know her/dating her/hooking up with her, and you are talking about it on a thread about catcalling and street harassment! The point I was trying to make originally was that they are not the same thing and shouldn't be confused. I've had lots of men approach me over the years - in the street or other public places - and say something flattering and ask for my number or if I'm single or if I'd like to go for a coffee. None of that constitutes harassment. Not even the persistent one who when I told him I wasn't single gave me a wink and said "well maybe we could hook up anyway!". Asking someone out isn't harassing them. That goes for off-duty's example too.

So back to try and reiterate my earlier point. I know when I'm being approached romantically or sexually by a stranger and I know when I'm being harassed. They feel entirely different, have a different impulse behind them and are basically a world apart. A good example from about 4 years ago started out as being told to smile as I passed two men drinking on a bench. I kept walking. One called out to me to come and talk to him - I turned, gave a brief half smile and shook my head, turned back and kept walking. He got up and followed me - said I look really pretty and he wanted my number. I said "no, sorry" whereupon he called me a c*nt and a whore and followed me for the next few minutes continuing this tirade. This wasn't some ham-fisted attempt to ask me out, it was an escalating series of things he wanted me to do to make him feel in control of me, and it absolutely felt threatening from the outset which was why I kept walking.

Asking someone out involves letting yourself be a little vulnerable to the possibility of rejection, harassing them involves making them feel vulnerable. This isn't about perception (the woman's perception) it's about intent. If you would never set out to intimidate a woman in the street then you perhaps can't imagine it and are thinking "maybe that bloke on the bench really liked you". He didn't. I can't work out how to explain it any better. That's what I meant when I said it involves power. Also I said many decent men don't fully understand the distinction (often because they don't witness harassment), not most. I know most do.

In reply to Timmd:
What about Vic Reeves style thigh rubbing?
Does this grate as much as cat calling.
It's a bit 'dirty bestardish', but if you can pull it off! Harmless enough?

In reply to off-duty:


That's almost exactly verbatim what I said back in 1991. I knew absolutely that it would lead nowhere, and I left immediately, barely even giving her time to smile sweetly. It was just being confronted by something so beautiful that I had to express what I thought. I thought it might be nice for her to know someone thought she was beautiful; eye of the beholder, and all that.

David's comments about the shy guy ring very true for me.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Hey, if you happen to see the most beautiful girl in the world.
Tell her I'm sorry, tell her I need my baby, hey, if you see her, won't you tell her, that I'm sorry...?
Or in the club style:-
Ay, if dyu appen t see the moost butiful gerl in d wirld....

In reply to Alyson:

Perhaps then what we describe as cat-calling needs better definition.

The example you give doesn't really qualify as cat-calling, in my opinion, which I'd describe as a one-off comment from a distance that would seldom go any further. Its a clumsy, and generally uncalled for, way of initiating some sort of interaction.

What you describe is the kind of altercation that occurs as much to other males as it did to you - "Oi, mate, what the fvck are you looking at? Want some of this then do ya?!". Its the kind of thing that happens at random, with the toe-rag who initiates it using whatever means they have at their disposal to kick the altercation off. If they want to start a fight with a female, chances are it'll be a comment like you received. If they want to start a fight with a male it will be a different sort of comment.

In reply to Timmd:

The whole ,
Thread - 'Street harassment is a problem for women'
Bootrock - 'What about the men!'
thing, so reminds me of the BlackLivesMatter vs AllLivesMatter thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/all-lives-matter-black-lives-matter.ht...

In reply to Timmd:

She doesn't mind and brings a refreshing point of view to the topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37562400

In reply to Gone for good:

I think the problem can be that it's an unknown quality when women can find themselves the object of attention from men whom they don't know?

A girl in my city ended up with some facial injuries after ignoring a man in the street. That some women like it, doesn't mean that for others the fear of the unknown is removed, or invalid.

In reply to Ripley:


I think the problem can be that it's an unknown quality when men can find themselves the object of attention from women whom they don't know.


That's shocking, and a criminal offence and I hope they had the full brunt of the law.
I could link you to numerous stories of men being subject to injury as well.

That's not me distracting from the issue, but instead of issuing it as a female only problem we need to teach common decency from both sexes. And we can't make sweeping generalisations.

In reply to Ripley:


I'm sure that's case on occasion.


I don't disagree. But equally some women enjoy it and the attention that goes with it.

In reply to Gone for good:

Perhaps looking into figures obtained through polls to see how women find the experience might be a starting point on deciding whether it's something we should try and stop from happening.

In reply to Gone for good:

The least bad option would seem to be men simply not cat calling women in the street, since there's plenty of other scenarios in which women can get agreeable attention from men - on their terms in the sense of going out and seeking it.

Bars, pubs, clubs...

In reply to Ripley:

I think you are exaggerating the scale of the issue.

Some women like the attention, some don't.
Some men think it's appropriate, most don't.
It's a fairly basic way of communicating but on the whole it's harmless and it's origins are meant to compliment, not cause grief.