Log in

View Full Version : who's twisting these biatches tits?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Katrine
12-04-2006, 09:26 PM
I just liked the photo of the guy wearing no pants with his lil cockola sticking it from his shirt. Imagine having to sit down in that chair after him! If he can't bother to wear pants in public, imagine what effort he puts into wiping and cleaning. ;)

xdamage
12-04-2006, 09:48 PM
I just liked the photo of the guy wearing no pants with his lil cockola sticking it from his shirt. Imagine having to sit down in that chair after him! If he can't bother to wear pants in public, imagine what effort he puts into wiping and cleaning. ;)

Well, he was reading an Archie comic --- I get the impression he is one of the city denziens that is easily amused.

lopaw
12-04-2006, 10:23 PM
My take on this is pretty simple:

The guy walking down the street that stares at my tits & says "hi baby" gets a wink and a smile.

The guy that tries to shove his junk near me gets a breathing tube & the surgical removal of my foot from his ass.

Any situation that falls in between these two examples will be handled on a "quid pro quo" basis.

Pretty cut & dry if you ask me.

I thought that's how all women handled these kinds of things.....no? ::)

Jenny
12-04-2006, 11:56 PM
I thought that's how all women handled these kinds of things.....no? ::)Ipod. Shuts out everything except actual physical harassment.

Phil-W
12-05-2006, 12:48 PM
While I'm sure there are people of both genders who want to be thought police, that website has nothing to do with people's thoughts and pretty much only has to do with public conduct towards strangers.

[Re Phil's over-enthusuiastically hugging friend]...this is an interaction between friends - not strangers on a street. Negotiate it in whatever way you think will best solve the problem.

Ok, the website has a picture of a guy turning to apparently stare at a girl's backside. Did the woman who took the picture know either party? Did the unknown woman feel harassed - be sure she wasn't asked.

Say I meet my enthusiastically hugging friend in the street and she lives up to form and duly enthusastically hugs. A complete stranger says; 'he's hugging that woman too tightly, that's harrassment' and takes my picture. Said picture appears on website with caption saying "groper harassing woman".

Where's my redress?


So... you're concerned about the accuracy and truth of the postings, but the fact that they are specifically posted as unverified complaints cuts no ice with you? No, there is no onus on the site to ensure the comments are accurate.

So how about a statement on the site saying "we will verify the names and address of all people posting accusations of harrasment. These will be kept confidential except in the event of a law suit, in which case they will be passed to the other parties' lawyers. Please ensure all details of reported incidents are accurate."

How many people would post if they could be held accountable for any defamation?

Phil.

xdamage
12-05-2006, 01:26 PM
I think you're wasting your time Phil. People only care about the negatives of this lack of due process, and protection of privacy when it negatively affects them, otherwise they tend to think it's okay to forgo due process and privacy as a way of expediantly dealing with illegal and bad behavior.

But hey, think about this, there are a considerable number of strippers on www.stripperweb.com that have decided NOT to post their pictures for various personal reasons. Can you imagine how pissed off they would be if some member here visited them in a club, took their picture (say outside of the club just so there is no legal issue related to taking pics in the club), and posted it without their permission? Hey, it's just the facts right - I mean they really are strippers, there is nothing defamatory about just stating a fact right (well so goes the argument), so if someone snaps their photo and posts it along with "Stripper who goes by the name of X", you can bet the affected stripper would be pissed, and so would her sisters for posting her pic without permission.

The problem is of course, when you bring up the issue of a lot of innocent guys can easily be defamed by this system, they shrug because hey, it doesn't negatively affect them. I mean who cares if a few innocent men are defamed in the process of hunting down the evil nasty harrassers. Sadly, this is a system that will rapidly become abused, and many innocent people will be harmed by it because the abusers of the system just don't get it, and won't get it. They have to re-learn the hardway what our countries founders worked hard to put a stop to, because they understood human nature, and knew from first hand experience how quickly a system where guilt is presumed, and the accuser can make any claims they want will be abused.

Oh maybe they even understand how a system like this can be abused intellectually, but emotionally they probably don't give a shit because after all, it's just a bunch of nasty men. Who cares if a few are harmed in the process.

Jenny
12-05-2006, 06:41 PM
Ok, the website has a picture of a guy turning to apparently stare at a girl's backside. Did the woman who took the picture know either party? Did the unknown woman feel harassed - be sure she wasn't asked.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say that I agree that particular picture doesn't fit in with the described mandate. I've said that the described mandate (if adhered to) doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If it will make y'all happy I will write a letter detailing how that picture is inappropriate for the aims of the site.


Say I meet my enthusiastically hugging friend in the street and she lives up to form and duly enthusastically hugs. A complete stranger says; 'he's hugging that woman too tightly, that's harrassment' and takes my picture. Said picture appears on website with caption saying "groper harassing woman".
Again. Interaction between friends. Not street harassment. You're asking what would happen if a person took a random photo and full out lied? The same thing that would happen if they did it anywhere else on the internet. That is, you could get redress if you put a lot of effort into it. But that is not unique to a site targetting street harassers. If you aren't planning to shut down the entire self-publishing internet, what's the problem? I don't think it is morally neutral to falsely post. I don't think it is morally neutral to harass women on the street. This seems like an effective way to combat it, at least on a case case.


So how about a statement on the site saying "we will verify the names and address of all people posting accusations of harrasment. These will be kept confidential except in the event of a law suit, in which case they will be passed to the other parties' lawyers. Please ensure all details of reported incidents are accurate."

How many people would post if they could be held accountable for any defamation?

Phil.
I don't know. Probably all the ones who do now that aren't lying. How many do you intuitively think are just snapping random photos and making shit up? I appreciate there is no way to know for sure; but just intuitively.

xdamage
12-05-2006, 07:36 PM
I don't know. Probably all the ones who do now that aren't lying. How many do you intuitively think are just snapping random photos and making shit up? I appreciate there is no way to know for sure; but just intuitively.

Honestly? I think that if most of these women faced a life of looking ugly or were downright ignored by men because they weren't attractive they'd have a brand new view of the world. Metaphorically speaking, which is worse, to see some uglyness from time to time, or to be completely blind? And which is worse, to be attractive and occassionally harrassed, or to be unattractive and never know what its like to have the other sex want you.

Nobody gets to choose their genes, and while some are fortunate, and some make efforts to improve on their luck, the pain of suffering with imperfect genes is simple not understandable by those who have been lucky.

It's not a matter of lying. It's a matter of having some perspective about the big picture. And in the big picture, an attractive woman has the option to dress down, but an unattractive woman doesn't have the option to dramatically improve her appearance short of surgery.

I'm not saying that harrassing women is okay. But I am saying that, well frankly, nobody feels any significant sympathy for these women anymore then we feel sympathy for people who are wealthy and find that the help is sometimes a bit rude. In the big picture, there are far, far worse things to have to go through.

I want to point out too that you PC correct people love to attribute human behavior to "society" and the "environment" - so if you really believe what you say, has it occured to you that these guys are products of their environment, of their society? If you're going to give women that break, and blaim/attribute their behavior to social influences, why not give the same break to these sad fuckers in the city whose game isn't so great, whose lines verge on harrassment. Afterall, they too are products of society, of the environment.

Katrine
12-05-2006, 09:12 PM
Even ugly women get harrassed by perv men on the street. Looks are no excuse. These predators are looking to make people uncomfortable. X, next time you are minding your own business in the library, and some dude comes up to you and starts jerking his shit right in front of you, then tell me how you feel?

xdamage
12-05-2006, 09:34 PM
Even ugly women get harrassed by perv men on the street. Looks are no excuse.


Sure, that happens, but everyone is harrassed occassionally in life for various reasons. If you can't handle any of it then it's time to toughen up a bit. But you can't tell me that ugly women have it happen to them equal to attractive women. I'm not that guillable.



These predators are looking to make people uncomfortable.


No they're not. You really don't understand them if you think that. They do make other's uncomfortable, but that's not their intent. They really just don't have the social skills needed to approach women in constructive ways - it's more a cry for pity then anything else. You give them way too much credit by empowering them and believing they are in control and trying to make you uncomfortable.

Of course in the city there are predators. Even us guys have to watch our back. We don't flash our cash, we don't flash our watches, we don't walk in dark alleys. There are some villians running around in cities looking to take advantage of others - my guess is they don't read holla-at.com, nor will anything posted about them change their ways. But then it doesn't require a rocket science degree to detect and avoid the predators either - mostly common sense, but nothing we do will entirely rid the cities of these types.



X, next time you are minding your own business in the library, and some dude comes up to you and starts jerking his shit right in front of you, then tell me how you feel?

I've been propositioned by gay men many times in my life.

But I didn't feel a need to go find a website to post about my trauma. I Know exactly how I felt. I felt pretty much nothing other then a bit of pity for the loser, and moved on.

Come on, what's going to happen in a library anyway? Nothing. I could see being scared if it's some out of the way place where you're at risk of some psycho attacking you, hey, I'd be ready to fight then too, but on a bus, or a library, or some public place, nothing is going to happen. Just blow em off.

A lot of it comes down to how you view it. Shit exists, but you empower these jerks by how you perceive it, but you could take away that power from them if you'd learn to see these losers for what they are, pathetic, but generally not real threats.

And really, if a guy starts jerking himself in a library, that's probably a good indication he is mentally ill. Sad, possibly dangerous even, but you can't draw any conclusions about harrassers in general from such an extreme case. Someone like that needs help, not judgement.

evan_essence
12-06-2006, 01:24 AM
Even ugly women get harrassed by perv men on the street. Looks are no excuse. These predators are looking to make people uncomfortable. X, next time you are minding your own business in the library, and some dude comes up to you and starts jerking his shit right in front of you, then tell me how you feel?Yeah, forget it, ladies. Getting this message through is a lost cause. Not only do guys not have to live with the probability of the scenario you painted, they also can't imagine themselves shrunk to 5'3" 115 pounds and being intimidated by someone who would wrestle seven weight classes above them. Nor do they remember being young enough to have not yet developed a certain savvy and thick skin about such matters. Fortunately for them, their whining here is as much a part of free speech as the practice they're objecting to.

-Ev

xdamage
12-06-2006, 08:33 AM
Yeah, forget it, ladies. Getting this message through is a lost cause. Not only do guys not have to live with the probability of the scenario you painted, they also can't imagine themselves shrunk to 5'3" 115 pounds and being intimidated by someone who would wrestle seven weight classes above them. Nor do they remember being young enough to have not yet developed a certain savvy and thick skin about such matters. Fortunately for them, their whining here is as much a part of free speech as the practice they're objecting to.

-Ev

That's a fair and valid point, we do develop a thicker skin when we're older, and it's true that a guy my size isn't easily intimidated, however....

But that's sort of derailment of what I object to about this site.

I don't mind the stories. I don't disagree that some of these guys (and I said "some", not all) are intimidating, because it's not at all clear from reading these stories that all of these women felt intimidated. Many of them write as if they felt no real threat, just annoyed at the behavior.

OTOH I do mind the pictures. If a woman is really feeling intimidated by some guy, suggesting they go on the offensive and confront these guys, and take pictures is poor advice. That's what we have a legal system for. There are some real nut jobs out there, particularly in cities. Even I have the good sense to remain defensive around the cities shifty characters, but I certainly don't go into offensive mode and confront or snap photos of people that I think might really be dangerous. Leave that to the cops.

However if she is going to snap a photo, and can do so safely, take it to the police if she feels a law or her rights has been violated. She can tell her tale on a public site effectively without posting a picture. And if a law has been violated, let the cops find the individual from the photo, and arrest them.

Most of these guys though whose pics are on this site are never going to read hollerat.com. It's not going to change their behavior at all, versus arresting them which might have some impact on their behavior.

OTOH, there are some guys whose pics I think several of us agree shouldn't be up here, and the stories don't even suggest that the women were intimidated by them, just grossed out at what "turds" (from the sub-title of the site) they are. Yea, well there a lot of turds out there. Sucks, but even turds still have a right to privacy and due process.

That still doesn't negate my point though that there are many women that, for example, the construction workers don't ever say "hey baby" too. The black and white view is that all harrassment is equally bad. The grey view is that there are degrees, and while being intimidated or groped by some nut job is heinous, some fat guy saying "hey baby" is at best mildly annoying, and for many women, they would enjoy such occassional compliments.

Phil-W
12-06-2006, 12:42 PM
You're asking what would happen if a person took a random photo and full out lied? The same thing that would happen if they did it anywhere else on the internet. That is, you could get redress if you put a lot of effort into it. But that is not unique to a site targetting street harassers. If you aren't planning to shut down the entire self-publishing internet, what's the problem? I don't think it is morally neutral to falsely post. I don't think it is morally neutral to harass women on the street. This seems like an effective way to combat it, at least on a case case.

I suppose my concern with the Internet is more general in that it provides both a radid means of dissemenating information, and anonymity to use or misuse the information presented.

As a plus I could cite the Guttenberg project www.gutenberg.org that provides on line access to rare and influential books. As a negative I could cite the explosion in child pornography. It's all to easy to misuse the Internet and to hide behind the anonymity.

With the Hollaback website I think there are two issues.

(a) I suspect it's being used for 'political' ends by its originators - "look, thousands of cases of harrassement". The language of the site is not that of a neutral person providing a service, but of an activist bent on advancing their ends. I have no direct problem with that other than the resulting potential false accusations.

(b) I doubt it is effective in preventing harrassement in that those who harrass probably are unaware of the site, or if they are aware, don't care.

I suspect those that post on it get a pyschological beneft from doing so - at least they've done something to hit back. And if it makes them feel better about an upsetting incident, then good luck to them (providing they've posted a fair summary of events).


How many do you intuitively think are just snapping random photos and making shit up? I appreciate there is no way to know for sure; but just intuitively.

Actually relatively few - I think that most of the people that use the site are genuine. Let me guess (on no hard information) that 5% of incidents are due to misunderstanding and 5% are due to malice. That still leaves 90% of those posting having been on the wrong end of an unpleasant incident.

I'd actually have a lot more time for the site if it wasn't so politically correct. As I said above, I feel the site is more to advance political agendas than to redress wrongs.

If the site were less PC and carried stronger warnings about malicious/false posts, I'd have far less of an issue with it.

Phil.

Phil-W
12-06-2006, 12:44 PM
...Fortunately for them, their whining here is as much a part of free speech as the practice they're objecting to. -Ev

Voltaire perhaps: "I object to every word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Phil.

Jenny
12-06-2006, 01:13 PM
(a) I suspect it's being used for 'political' ends by its originators - "look, thousands of cases of harrassement". The language of the site is not that of a neutral person providing a service, but of an activist bent on advancing their ends. I have no direct problem with that other than the resulting potential false accusations.
No offence Phil, but that observation is not particularly astute. As I mentioned before, they are framing it as a socio-political issue - that is, "These are not just a series of unpleasant incidents, but a manifestation of a greater social structure". There is no suspicion - it IS, on its face, political. In a deliberate and structured kind of way.


(b) I doubt it is effective in preventing harrassement in that those who harrass probably are unaware of the site, or if they are aware, don't care.
Well, considering that several of the guys apparently don't want their photo taken, I'd argue that they are absorbing on some level. And even if they are not - is the effect of deflecting the insult worthless? I would say no.


Actually relatively few - I think that most of the people that use the site are genuine. Let me guess (on no hard information) that 5% of incidents are due to misunderstanding and 5% are due to malice. That still leaves 90% of those posting having been on the wrong end of an unpleasant incident.
Me too. Although I still don't know what you mean by misunderstanding - like the guy thought commenting on her tits was charming? When he said "Nice Rack" he was actually referring to someone carrying a rack of some kind? I will repeat what they said - the best way not to be misunderstood is to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. However the point remains that you are getting your knickers in a twist over like 3 photos. Yes, it might be bad for those guys, but it is hardly worth indicting the whole site.


I'd actually have a lot more time for the site if it wasn't so politically correct. As I said above, I feel the site is more to advance political agendas than to redress wrongs.
Do you even know what politically correct means? Or are you one of the hoards of people who just use the term for a catch all criticism of anything that criticizes white male hegemony? What, exactly, is bad about political correctness? I mean jokes about being politically correct are fine; but I think there is a bit of a problem when the people mistake the parody (which is intended to be funny) with the actual issue. Redressing wrong, empowering women and political agenda aren't mutually exclusive. They can all peacably exist on one website.

Phil-W
12-06-2006, 03:39 PM
No offence Phil...

None taken - I wouldn't be continuing this exchange if I didn't find it interesting.


Well, considering that several of the guys apparently don't want their photo taken, I'd argue that they are absorbing on some level. And even if they are not - is the effect of deflecting the insult worthless? I would say no.

I'd doubt their behaviour would substantially change. It's probably more the uncertainly of the purpose of the picture. Some at least may be wondering if a very large and pissed off boyfriend will turn up for a non-rational arguement. ["You were rude to my bird - SMACK!"].

Not the most philosophical approach, but fear of a larger 'predator' turning up is probably a more effective mechanism for stopping repeats than a vague threat to post a picture of a website.

(There's a bit of the neanderthal in us all }:D ).


Me too. Although I still don't know what you mean by misunderstanding - like the guy thought commenting on her tits was charming? When he said "Nice Rack" he was actually referring to someone carrying a rack of some kind? I will repeat what they said - the best way not to be misunderstood is to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. However the point remains that you are getting your knickers in a twist over like 3 photos. Yes, it might be bad for those guys, but it is hardly worth indicting the whole site.

(a) I'm not getting my knickers in a twist - to be honest I'm more amused than annoyed by the site.

A more serious point whould be whether a site as polemic as this actually puts off people from considering the subject. Had the FAQ been less full of PC jargon, I probably would have read the material with more interest. Instead I switched off.

I resent having my thought channelled (see below). Give me reasoned arguement please - I'm a mature adult capable of being convinced of the moral and intellectual correctness of your point of view.

(Talking in general here - and not condoning harrassment).


Do you even know what politically correct means? Or are you one of the hoards of people who just use the term for a catch all criticism of anything that criticizes white male hegemony? What, exactly, is bad about political correctness? I mean jokes about being politically correct are fine; but I think there is a bit of a problem when the people mistake the parody (which is intended to be funny) with the actual issue. Redressing wrong, empowering women and political agenda aren't mutually exclusive. They can all peacably exist on one website.

Do you know what it means? I think political correctness (as a term) is a very nebulous concept that is used with a multitude of meanings. [Just look up some definitions on the web to see what I mean].

My definition of PC? Very much the Orwellian idea of avoiding thought crime by using language of such exactitude that your way of thought is channelled by reading that language.

"...aren’t you worried that your site will fuel the latent vindictiveness within women and LGBTQ-identified folks across the country, leading to a massive witch-hunt and rampant Soviet-style denounciations of countless innocents?"

This does not invite me to consider the material on their site, but tells me there is only one acceptable mode of thought. A bit less diatrabe and a bit more reasoned presentation please.

Phil.

Jenny
12-06-2006, 04:14 PM
I'd doubt their behaviour would substantially change. It's probably more the uncertainly of the purpose of the picture. Some at least may be wondering if a very large and pissed off boyfriend will turn up for a non-rational arguement. ["You were rude to my bird - SMACK!"].

Not the most philosophical approach, but fear of a larger 'predator' turning up is probably a more effective mechanism for stopping repeats than a vague threat to post a picture of a website.

(There's a bit of the neanderthal in us all }:D ).
Well, seeing as I'm not big on getting boys to stick up for me (I carry my own groceries too)... Seriously, I actually doubt it has much to do with a specific concern of retribution. I think it is simply a reaction of not wanting bad behaviour recorded. I mean, it seems unlikely that some thug is going to track them down based on nothing but a picture in New York. And I find the supposition that neanderthal men wandered around yelling comments about their tits to neanderthal women... well, ill judged.


(a) I'm not getting my knickers in a twist - to be honest I'm more amused than annoyed by the site.
Good.

A more serious point whould be whether a site as polemic as this actually puts off people from considering the subject. Had the FAQ been less full of PC jargon, I probably would have read the material with more interest. Instead I switched off.
I find it interesting that you determine the fact that you "switch off" instead of actually reading and evaluating as a problem with them and not you.
What "jargon" is in there? I found most of it to be in accessible, everyday language.


I resent having my thought channelled (see below). Give me reasoned arguement please - I'm a mature adult capable of being convinced of the moral and intellectual correctness of your point of view.
What does that even mean? Thoughts are channeled by reasoned arguments. It's part of the reasoning process. As I said before - intelligent people may disagree on their premise, but intelligent people cannot reduce their premise into "men don't count" and expect to sound intelligent. Further disagreeing with their premise is not the same as arguing for "due process" or making it easy to sue. In fact you are not well serving your fundamental disagreement by focussing on minutiae that is not really important your greater issue. At least punk, and even CO are just out with it: "yeah, yo' - we just don't like feminists and although we don't think it is cool to expose yourself to strange women without permission (unless the women in question are strippers, in which case they ought to shut the fuck and be grateful someone is paying them for being stupid sluts in the first place) the best thing women can do in that circumstance is shut up and take it."


My definition of PC? Very much the Orwellian idea of avoiding thought crime by using language of such exactitude that your way of thought is channelled by reading that language.
Ah yes. The Great Person Hole Cover Debate. Out of curiosity - what does that have to do with the site? What in their use of language is so exacting and repressive on Hollabacknyc? I mean, it doesn't seem like a cesspool of linguistic PC to me. Your problem isn't with their language, it's with their substantive politics - in a nutshell, as you said above, you shut off. You didn't even really read. You don't like feminists; it's not their language that's at issue.


"...aren’t you worried that your site will fuel the latent vindictiveness within women and LGBTQ-identified folks across the country, leading to a massive witch-hunt and rampant Soviet-style denounciations of countless innocents?"

This does not invite me to consider the material on their site, but tells me there is only one acceptable mode of thought. A bit less diatrabe and a bit more reasoned presentation please.

Phil.Dude, that wasn't a diatribe. That was satire. Bottom line: are there are guys here who think that women should do ANYTHING except a) take it a compliment (and really, I like some of you, but anyone who thinks that is such a tool) or b) suck it up? I'm interested.

xdamage
12-06-2006, 04:34 PM
Bottom line: are there are guys here who think that women should do ANYTHING except a) take it a compliment (and really, I like some of you, but anyone who thinks that is such a tool) or b) suck it up? I'm interested.

Such polarized choices. Why can't it be some of both true depending on the situation, and intent. And some cases be not so clearly either a or b.

In my mind Jay is exactly right on when he says it depends on the context.

LilSweetVixen
12-06-2006, 10:38 PM
if women want the privelege of being sexually liberated without being spurned as sluts and not considered for marriage, they need to STFU about "street harassment". that's called flirting.

you can't have it both ways. you can't say you have the same sex drive as a man then try to play innocent and scurry at the first sign of a turned-on guy.

Jenny
12-06-2006, 11:05 PM
if women want the privelege of being sexually liberated without being spurned as sluts and not considered for marriage, they need to STFU about "street harassment". that's called flirting.

you can't have it both ways. you can't say you have the same sex drive as a man then try to play innocent and scurry at the first sign of a turned-on guy.
Well gosh. I haven't seen a posting this ill thought out since the one directly above it.
Flirting is done in appropriate places in appropriate ways (although, funny story, yesterday leaving someone's apartment building a guys stopped and very politely asked me for a hug. Like he was asking for the time. But a hug. I wasn't offended, and he was clearly not harassing me - there was something off there - but I still thought of this thread). Not strangers on the street shouting out offensive comments. Flirting is when the guy who sat next to me in Property told me that I was adversely possessing his seat. Not when a guy flung a beer bottle (with beer in it, btw) at my sister and I because he decided that we were gay, and he was pissed off about gay women who had no interest in men being at a bar where men were present and clearly wanted women to be interested in them. Flirting is also not guys commenting on my breasts, ass, weight, hair or the colour of my pubic hair when I take my dog to the park. Geez. If this is how you think guys act when they like you no wonder you are having such a hard time. Street harassment is not guys acting like they like you, or even really coming on to you - it is in the same ballpark as "being spurned for marriage" and "being called a slut". It is oppressive behaviour, not liberating behaviour. Guys who want to have liberated type sex with you - don't act like that.

Further, "having the sex drive of a man" - which is not something I would ever say, because it is just relegating sexual desire to a male zone and letting me follow it in. I am not an honourary man whenever I seek out sex, thank you - does not mean that I am at the disposal of every man who might be turned on. I still get to - just like men do - determine the people with whom I want to be sexual. By that I don't mean that everyone I want wants me back - just that I don't have to be sexual with people I don't want to be, and nobody has any right to strong arm me - verbally or physically - because I might want to be sexual with someone else. Geez honey. Sexual liberation is about liberating our sexuality for us - not for the purposes of whatever guy happens to be walking by.

Finally - scurrying away is exactly what the women in contention aren't doing. Just because they don't like it, doesn't mean that they are responding meekly.

xdamage
12-07-2006, 07:04 AM
Well, as you know I tend to look at human behavior from a socio-biological point of view. Here are some thoughts.

1. A lot of women (and men) today have grown up in wealthy societies with law enforcement. They have had little direct contact with the not-so nice side of human nature (and notice I didn't say social nature). IMHO humans have a nature, and it's not all sugar and spice and everything nice. They are basically evolved animals, but like animals were still driven by a lot of primal instincts, drives, and under the right conditions, we'll fight, kill, steal, etc.

2. There is an old saying, roughly that humans are 3 meals away from anarchy. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we saw how quickly people revert to a brutal survival mode in the absence of law enforcement. Not just basic survival, but people taking what they wanted via stealing, violence, even rape.

3. There has been some interesting studies done with rats in over crowded (simulated city like) surroundings; basically their behavior tends to (statistically) worsen to the point where they start stealing, raping, commit violence just for the sake of it.

4. The male half of the species does indeed have a tendency toward violence. See so many other animal species for examples of violent behavior. Survival of the fittest has it's place in a more brutal environment.

5. The sex drive is a powerful one that has evolved over billions of years.

Now to get to my main point. I think a lot of people that have only grown up in our modern society really don't have a clue about human nature. They imagine it's all sweet and good, and these wicked men running around cities in harrassing people represent anomalies. But if society fell apart tomorrow due to a disaster, those same types may well end up being the survivors.

I think a lot of younger women are naive. They imagine, roughly, that they should be able to be sexy, and only attract those men that they want to attract. They don't fully grasp the darker side of human nature; they see it as some social problem, anomalies, rather then normality that has been suppressed by way of social training and a strong legal protection system.

But from my point of view our society is a very fragile thing. Our wealthy lifestyle affords us some time to reflect, it affords most of us a great deal of protection from others (but never complete protection, that's simply impossible) and freedom to do as we want, but it can't and never will afford individuals the right to complete dictate how others think or behave towards them. There will always be conflicts of wants. But our society is still fragile. There are many people living in poverty still, there are many people raised by parents who don't install strong social values in them, and I don't see any of this changing soon, not if populations keep increasing.

Phil-W
12-07-2006, 06:40 PM
Ah the joys of ambuiguity in the English language.


And I find the supposition that neanderthal men wandered around yelling comments about their tits to neanderthal women... well, ill judged.


Dude, that wasn't a diatribe. That was satire.

My neanderthal was caveman protecting his mate, and the diatrabe was the one on the site, not your comments.

See how easy it is to misinterpet things.


I find it interesting that you determine the fact that you "switch off" instead of actually reading and evaluating as a problem with them and not you. What "jargon" is in there? I found most of it to be in accessible, everyday language.

Take this quote for example:

"Due in part to prevalent stereotypes of men of color as sexual predators or predisposed to violence, HollaBackNYC asks that contributors do not discuss the race of harassers or include other racialized commentary".

All that's done is perpetuated the stereotype. Why not just say "unless ethnic background is pertinent to the incident do not discuss race". Keep saying coloured men are regarded by some as sexual predators and eventually you'll produce exactly the mindset you're trying to avoid.

We have exactly the reverse problem in the UK. Our crime figures are not broken down by ethnic origin. Now it's fairly common knowledge that more crime than average is commited by certain ethnic minorities - so why not say so.

I assume that these ethnic minorities have no greater inherent predisposition to commit crime than any other part of the popularion, therefore if they do commit more crime it's down to socio-economic factors. Why not have everything out in the open and try to correct the injustices that lead to the higher crime rates? At the moment it's all swept under the carpet, so things will never improve.


Your problem isn't with their language, it's with their substantive politics - in a nutshell, as you said above, you shut off. You didn't even really read. You don't like feminists; it's not their language that's at issue.

Nope - I don't like people who are absolutely convinced they are right - don't have to be feminists: anyone convinced their viewpoint is the only valid one will get a similar response from me. I respect anyone who has a viewpoint that encompasses the possibility of error - it means they're not dogmatic and their viewpoint can evolve. Without the admission of possibility of error, your thoughts become fossilised.

One of my friends has a distinctly femanistic viewpoint. We get on fine because we can debate with a sense of humour and acknowlege that neither of us is likely to see eye to eye with each others viewpoints. Just means we enjoy bandying words with each other.

Phil.

Jenny
12-07-2006, 07:04 PM
My neanderthal was caveman protecting his mate,
I know. But in order to require protection it requires another neanderthal caveman to be harassing her. And I just can't imagine that street harassment was a big problem to neanderthals.


and the diatrabe was the one on the site, not your comments.
I know. And it wasn't a diatribe. It was satire.


See how easy it is to misinterpet things.
Nope. I'm on top of it.




"Due in part to prevalent stereotypes of men of color as sexual predators or predisposed to violence, HollaBackNYC asks that contributors do not discuss the race of harassers or include other racialized commentary".

All that's done is perpetuated the stereotype.
No it hasn't - unless you think that acknowledging the stereotype exists and criticially examining it is perpetuating it. I don't, and I doubt they do, and honestly, it's going to be a pretty hard argument to make. They are providing a cogent and simple explanation on why they have a certain policy; it has to do with popular and unflattering stereotypes of certain men that they don't care to perpetuate. I don't think that criticizing a stereotype can count as reinforcing it.


We have exactly the reverse problem in the UK. Our crime figures are not broken down by ethnic origin. Now it's fairly common knowledge that more crime than average is commited by certain ethnic minorities - so why not say so.
Well, I would say that it depends on what context you are saying it. If (and this is what they are trying to avoid) you are trying to imply that black men are more likely to be sexual predators, or that being black is correlative with committing sex crimes - well, I think the problem with that is obvious.


I assume that these ethnic minorities have no greater inherent predisposition to commit crime than any other part of the popularion, therefore if they do commit more crime it's down to socio-economic factors. Why not have everything out in the open and try to correct the injustices that lead to the higher crime rates? At the moment it's all swept under the carpet, so things will never improve.
Well, like I said - it depends on what you are trying to say. However, none of what you are saying has anything to do with their site, because it is not targeted at that kind of crime prevention.


Nope - I don't like people who are absolutely convinced they are right - don't have to be feminists: anyone convinced their viewpoint is the only valid one will get a similar response from me. I respect anyone who has a viewpoint that encompasses the possibility of error - it means they're not dogmatic and their viewpoint can evolve. Without the admission of possibility of error, your thoughts become fossilised.
You seem to construct your point of view pretty positively. I didn't notice a lot of "I could be wrong" in there. Fine. I assume that most people hold a viewpoint because they think it is the right one. Thinking that you are right -and that is kind of redundant, I mean who thinks they are wrong? - doesn't mean that you are inflexible; it just means that barring a cogent, persuasive argument, you think you're right. You'll forgive me, but barring doc's original comment there has not been a lot of cogent, persuasive argument against the validity of the website, and no value at all accorded to the fact that women SHOULDN'T HAVE TO just tolerate abuse dished out on them just because they are women (which is the difference, JZ, between "just dealing with assholes" and this kind of activity). In any case, there are lots of guys who like women with "feministic" viewpoints as long as they make them deferential, and sweet and cuddly and man friendly. It has something to do with acknowledging complicity in the patriarchy I think - as long as guys don't have to do that, they are fine with feminists.

FBR
12-07-2006, 08:56 PM
In any case, there are lots of guys who like women with "feministic" viewpoints as long as they make them deferential, and sweet and cuddly and man friendly. It has something to do with acknowledging complicity in the patriarchy I think - as long as guys don't have to do that, they are fine with feminists.

I'm not sure if your criticism is of the men that expect that subservience or of the women who are more than happy to provide it to get their way. OK...Im sorry, I had a brain fart. Of course you are not criticizing the women.

But it is worth noting that the tables are often turned. The shoe can be on the other foot where the man is the supplicant. A lot of men work for women. Or in a social situation, find that they are the ones outside looking in with their noses pressed against the glass. Our genes tell us that when dealing with another guy to grunt, fart, mutter unintelligibly and then have a few beers, instinctively knowing that we have bonded and all is well. Women find grunting boorish, never fart, demand suscienct communication and prefer wine to beer. So we have to tailor our approach. If a woman tailors hers to acheive her endgame and the guy responds positively I dont see the problem.

FBR

Jenny
12-07-2006, 09:28 PM
I'm not sure if your criticism is of the men that expect that subservience or of the women who are more than happy to provide it to get their way. OK...Im sorry, I had a brain fart. Of course you are not criticizing the women.
FBR - surely you are implying that I never criticize women? That is not true, obviously - although here I don't tend towards it because, really, I think you guys have got that covered.


But it is worth noting that the tables are often turned. The shoe can be on the other foot where the man is the supplicant. A lot of men work for women. Or in a social situation, find that they are the ones outside looking in with their noses pressed against the glass. Our genes tell us that when dealing with another guy to grunt, fart, mutter unintelligibly and then have a few beers, inutitively knowing that we have bonded and all is well. Women find grunting boorish, never fart, demand suscienct communication and prefer wine to beer. So we have to tailor our approach. If a woman tailors hers to acheive her endgame and the guy responds positively I dont see the problem.

FBR
Certainly, although I suspect you are trying to lull me with a negative male stereotype, and then, like, when my guard is down, shiv me in the ribs. I don't mean women having a beer and enjoying a ballgame to be one of the guys; I mean taking a political position and, more or less, dumbing it down to make it fluffy and acceptable to men. And, yes, there is something I despise in that.

FBR
12-07-2006, 10:19 PM
FBR - surely you are implying that I never criticize women? That is not true, obviously - although here I don't tend towards it because, really, I think you guys have got that covered.

I can only go by what you say here. And you have to admit over on pink you often cluck over many of those clueless dancers like a mother hen. To be honest, I actually find that side of you kind of attractive. I realize those posts have nothing to do with the guys and are spoken in the spirit of sisterhood. But still, it does show that you have a kinder, gentler side.


Certainly, although I suspect you are trying to lull me with a negative male stereotype, and then, like, when my guard is down, shiv me in the ribs. I don't mean women having a beer and enjoying a ballgame to be one of the guys; I mean taking a political position and, more or less, dumbing it down to make it fluffy and acceptable to men. And, yes, there is something I despise in that.

You give me too much credt. I'm not that clever. I would only try to shiv you when you are on full alert with antennae tingling. Which, of course, would make successful shiving unlikely since you could see it coming.

Your irritation toward the women who take a different approach is surprising since presumably their aims are the same as yours. I don't know what to tell you other than that when your victory is achieved and the history books are being written, as victors you can write them however you want. Just lose the stories about the cutsie behavior and focus on tales of storming the ramparts.

FBR

Jenny
12-08-2006, 12:15 AM
I can only go by what you say here. And you have to admit over on pink you often cluck over many of those clueless dancers like a mother hen.
really? I do? Then, why do so many people think I'm such a fucking bitch?


You give me too much credt. I'm not that clever. I would only try to shiv you when you are on full alert with antennae tingling. Which, of course, would make successful shiving unlikely since you could see it coming.
Aww. That's sweet of you. I appreciate. A shiv in the FRONT of the ribs rather than the back is like a gift that keeps on giving.


Your irritation toward the women who take a different approach is surprising since presumably their aims are the same as yours. I don't know what to tell you other than that when your victory is achieved and the history books are being written, as victors you can write them however you want. Just lose the stories about the cutsie behavior and focus on tales of storming the ramparts.

FBR
No, but the "approach" and process is part of the end. Turning around and assuring men that feminism is sweet and non-threatening and all about hot girls kissing each other, being more sexually available to them and sexy high heels in the workplace is not really serving anyone ends. I mean, feminism IS threatening; that is the entire point - to disrupt the status quo. Making it soft and cuddly is essentially an effort to neutralize that.

xdamage
12-08-2006, 03:21 AM
Our genes tell us that when dealing with another guy to grunt, fart, mutter unintelligibly and then have a few beers, instinctively knowing that we have bonded and all is well.

/nod

Totally off topic, but one of the great things about being a guy, we can even have some major knock-down disagreements, resolve it, and move on, and be tighter buddies then before.

xdamage
12-08-2006, 03:40 AM
really? I do? Then, why does everyone think I'm such a fucking bitch?


Uhm, I don't see you as a bitch as such, more like idealistic, you have strong convictions, you fight back hard. Nothing really wrong with those traits. That kind of person can be even be incredibly effective, and I'm not at all afraid of people (yea even women people) pushing limits and boundaries. Rather I admire those traits even if I don't agree with all of the specifics.

OTOH I'm a bit older then you. Someone I admire a lot once said to me, do you want to be right? or do you want to be happy? Sometimes they are at odds. There is something to be said for trusting that the world, and others will make their choices for better or worse, that history and nature evolved as it has without needing my help, and that in the end, it will all work out okay, one way or another, and enjoying life without needing to control or judge all that has transpired, or all that others choose to do.

Phil-W
12-08-2006, 08:06 AM
...unless you think that acknowledging the stereotype exists and criticially examining it is perpetuating it. I don't, and I doubt they do, and honestly, it's going to be a pretty hard argument to make. They are providing a cogent and simple explanation on why they have a certain policy; it has to do with popular and unflattering stereotypes of certain men that they don't care to perpetuate. I don't think that criticizing a stereotype can count as reinforcing it.

But I do think that keep raising the stereotype does perpetuate it. Give a dog a bad name and all that jazz. I often think that people who harp on about a subject (in this case the stereotype of black men as sexual predators) want to keep that image in front of people so they can keep on debating it.

Why not consider the facts behind the stereotype. Is it a case of:

(a) Black men do act as sexual predators and the stereotype is true.
(b) Black men don't act as sexual predators. (or at least no more than any other ethnic group).

The two cases require different responses. If (a) - which I personally consider unlikely - then what causes them to act in such a manner? Acknowledging a problem is the first step to solving it.

If (b) then - to consider the canine metaphor - let sleeping dogs lie. If the steroetype is continually pushed in front of people then it'll resister (even if it's only subconsciously). If the (specific) steroetype isn't raised, then there's far less choice people will pick up a prejudice because they won't have the mental schema to develop that prejudice.



You seem to construct your point of view pretty positively. I didn't notice a lot of "I could be wrong" in there.

Of course I put my point positively, and of course there's not a lot of "I could be wrong" in there. Space precludes otherwise.

This is a message board, and there's not a lot of room for 10,000 word posts carefully considering every nuance. I'll try and get my point across as cogently as I can, despite the risk of my percise meaning being misunderstood.

Yeah, I can be wroing - and probably frequently are - but posts on here would be very tedious if I put in every if, but and therefore. 8)


Fine. I assume that most people hold a viewpoint because they think it is the right one. Thinking that you are right -and that is kind of redundant, I mean who thinks they are wrong? - doesn't mean that you are inflexible; it just means that barring a cogent, persuasive argument, you think you're right.

No arguements with that. It's just that, over the millenia some of the greatest philosophers in history have failed to agree on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. I'm happy to hold a divergent viewpoint to you, and not least because despite disagreeing with me you've always put over your points politely.


You'll forgive me, but barring doc's original comment there has not been a lot of cogent, persuasive argument against the validity of the website, and no value at all accorded to the fact that women SHOULDN'T HAVE TO just tolerate abuse dished out on them just because they are women (which is the difference, JZ, between "just dealing with assholes" and this kind of activity).

Oh, I don't believe women (or anyone) should be abused/harrassed, etc. In real life I'm generally pretty polite and considerate to all comers.

My arguement is that by pushing so politicised an agenda, the website causes people like me to 'switch off' and is thus counterproductive.


In any case, there are lots of guys who like women with "feministic" viewpoints as long as they make them deferential, and sweet and cuddly and man friendly. It has something to do with acknowledging complicity in the patriarchy I think - as long as guys don't have to do that, they are fine with feminists.

My only criteria for judging people is how they behave towards me. I'll behave politely and considerately towards them, and hope they return the compliment. The women I know don't have to be "deferential, and sweet and cuddly and man friendly" - they just have to treat me as fair and square as I try and treat them.

It all comes down to mutual respect - respect other people and they'll respect you.

Phil.

Phil-W
12-08-2006, 08:13 AM
really? I do? Then, why does everyone think I'm such a fucking bitch?

Actually, I think you're rather sweet. I just think you like a good arguement.

Now is this 3 minutes or the full half hour....


No, but the "approach" and process is part of the end. Turning around and assuring men that feminism is sweet and non-threatening and all about hot girls kissing each other, being more sexually available to them and sexy high heels in the workplace is not really serving anyone ends. I mean, feminism IS threatening; that is the entire point - to disrupt the status quo. Making it soft and cuddly is essentially an effort to neutralize that.

Why should feminism be threatening? What's wrong with wanting to be treated with respect?

Imposing your point of view on someone else because it's politically correct - now that is threatening.

There is a difference between the two.

Phil.

xdamage
12-08-2006, 08:21 AM
I often think that people who harp on about a subject (in this case the stereotype of black men as sexual predators) want to keep that image in front of people so they can keep on debating it.


Actually I'd say that people like to think of themselves as good and fair, I'm sure even Saddam Hussein thought he was a fair minded person (from his point of view).

So the goal of the statement is not to perpetuate or not a stereotype - that implies altruism. I look at people's motivation in terms of what are they getting out of it, not what are they doing for others.

I'd say the goal of the statement is:

1.) It makes the writer and site owners feel good about about themselves to think of themselves as non-racist, and to have others think the same.

2.) By showing they are being fair minded about racism, it implies (subtle, but such a powerful technique) that they must therefore also be fair minded about other social issues (in this particular case, the one that they are pushing).

3.) They may well have received many stories that included strong racial negativity as well as anti-male sentiment. It's hard to win when everyone is against you. It's again a subtle, but excellent strategy people employee, when you fight a battle, make sure you have some other equally pissed off groups of people on your side, they make excellent allies. I'm not even saying people think this strategy through in that much detail, but they know it instinctively because it's what works.

Jenny
12-08-2006, 08:40 AM
But I do think that keep raising the stereotype does perpetuate it. Give a dog a bad name and all that jazz. I often think that people who harp on about a subject (in this case the stereotype of black men as sexual predators) want to keep that image in front of people so they can keep on debating it.
Well. Do you consider 3 lines prohibiting the behaviour they are prohibiting "harping"? So far as I can they are a) prohibiting a behaviour and b) providing a cogent and short explanation for why they prohibit that behaviour (to discourage racist stereotype). I don't think you can legitimately claim that is falling into the description you provide.


Why not consider the facts behind the stereotype. Is it a case of:
Because the website is about street harassment, not determining the basis of crime in black men? If the site were about the latter, you might have a better argument. As it stands they just want to prohibit racist stereotype on their website.


This is a message board, and there's not a lot of room for 10,000 word posts carefully considering every nuance. I'll try and get my point across as cogently as I can, despite the risk of my percise meaning being misunderstood.
Are you kidding with this?


No arguements with that. It's just that, over the millenia some of the greatest philosophers in history have failed to agree on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. I'm happy to hold a divergent viewpoint to you, and not least because despite disagreeing with me you've always put over your points politely.
Uh huh. And like I said, barring a persuasive argument to the contrary people tend to think they are right. That doesn't mean they are inflexible to the argument. I can't agree that positively stating a political position on a website dedicated to the political position is impolite. Sorry.


My arguement is that by pushing so politicised an agenda, the website causes people like me to 'switch off' and is thus counterproductive.
Again it's a POLITICAL WEBSITE. The clearly see the issue as a socio-political one. Their agenda is, by nature, political. It's like going to a website for the NDP and saying "but they's pushing such a political agenda. It's just turns me off." It is not a valid argument in the context of socio-political commentary intended to be the socio-political commentary. Your problem is that you see the political position and switch off - fine, your decision, but the problem then is with you switching off, not with them holding a different political position.


My only criteria for judging people is how they behave towards me. I'll behave politely and considerately towards them, and hope they return the compliment. The women I know don't have to be "deferential, and sweet and cuddly and man friendly" - they just have to treat me as fair and square as I try and treat them.
Okay... but you've never even met these women. All you dislike is their politics, and you haven't even given that a fair read by your reckoning. So I'm going to dare to go back to my previous assertion and posit that you just don't like feminists.


It all comes down to mutual respect - respect other people and they'll respect you.

Phil.
It does? Then why have we been arguing that these women somehow owe street harassers respect?

mr_punk
12-08-2006, 09:52 PM
although, funny story, yesterday leaving someone's apartment building a guys stopped and very politely asked me for a hug. Like he was asking for the time. But a hug. I wasn't offended, and he was clearly not harassing me

Street harassment is not guys acting like they like you, or even really coming on to youyeah, you go grrlll! wait..you almost sound lucid for a change. aren't you afraid the sisterhood will take away your tinfoil hat and revoke your 003 status (ie: license to castrate)?

"Due in part to prevalent stereotypes of men of color as sexual predators or predisposed to violence, HollaBackNYC asks that contributors do not discuss the race of harassers or include other racialized commentary".LOL..it's funny how they talk about not replacing sexism with racism. yet, replacing sexism with sexism is perfectly fine (ie: remember, it's harassment only if one is from a "historically subordinated" group). on a side note, speaking of race and harassment. here is an interesting article (http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2006/05/race_and_sexual_harassment.html#comment-61493) with some interesting commentary below..

another example of their retraded politics is HB insistence on using the latest feminist, socio-politically correct method of behavorial training for the patriarchy. it's one thing to snap a picture. it's one thing to ask for LE to do a better job of enforcing the laws against harassment. however, it quite another to expand the harassment way beyond the scope of it's design because some guy leered at a woman's ass.

I mean, feminism IS threatening; that is the entire point - to disrupt the status quo. Making it soft and cuddly is essentially an effort to neutralize that.i disagree. threatening? hardly. actually, it's pretty laughable. why do you think i make so much fun of you? anyway, sites like HB are laughable because they take an issue and because they insist putting on their PC, tinfoil hats which dilute and detract from the issue of harassment.

Jenny
12-08-2006, 10:19 PM
yeah, you go grrlll! wait..you almost sound lucid for a change. aren't you afraid the sisterhood will take away your tinfoil hat and revoke your 003 status (ie: license to castrate)?
No. And this is no different than anything I've been saying all along; I've never advocated the point of view that there is a necessary intersection between a come on or sexual interest and harassment or demeaning behaviour. And I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of crazy homeless people, plus I look like a very nice girl - a lot of people talk to me, so I can tell the difference between demeaning behaviour and random mental illness.


another example of their retraded politics is HB insistence on using the latest feminist, socio-politically correct method of behavorial training for the patriarchy. it's one thing to snap a picture. it's one thing to ask for LE to do a better job of enforcing the laws against harassment. however, it quite another to expand the harassment way beyond the scope of it's design because some guy leered at a woman's ass.
I don't get it. You don't think this:

what was notable about the lawsuit is that the employer was alleged to have condoned the sexual harassment of Latina employees that included insulting remarks about their Hispanic origin, along with the solicitation for sex, unwelcome sexual advances, sexually explicit jokes and comments, and groping of their bodies.
was meant to encompassed by harassment laws?


i disagree. threatening? hardly. actually, it's pretty laughable. why do you think i make so much fun of you? anyway, sites like HB are laughable because they take an issue and because they insist putting on their PC, tinfoil hats which dilute and detract from the issue of harassment.
I don't think it detracts from the issue, and it's not an issue you would have taken seriously under any guise - I mean, not for nothing, but consider the way you talk about women. So losing your non-existant support is pretty meaningless. However I was referring more to the "feminism is all well and good until some man loses his job" mode of thinking.

mr_punk
12-09-2006, 08:00 AM
No. And this is no different than anything I've been saying all alongoh, i know what you'be been saying. i'm just making fun that you're "betraying" the sisterhood like you're Naomi Wolfe or something.

I don't get it. You don't think this:i don't get it either. why would you even relate my quote with the article? i did say, "on a side note".

I don't think it detracts from the issue, and it's not an issue you would have taken seriously under any guise - I mean, not for nothing, but consider the way you talk about women. So losing your non-existant support is pretty meaningless.bzzzt wrong. it looks like you haven't been listening to me at all. then again, you never do. women snapping pictures of their harassers is fine with me. you ladies find it empowering? well, you go grrlll! the funny thing is that i gave HB benefit of the doubt until i noticed some of the posts don't qualify as harassment. surely, if they can tell their contributors not to discuss race. i'm sure it's in their power to ask the same when it comes to not posting non-harassment incidents. then again, that isn't the point. oh yeah, i do take women seriously and talk about them in a respectful manner. of course, none of this applies to strippers or feminists, but they're not women. hell, they don't even have heads...i think.

However I was referring more to the "feminism is all well and good until some man loses his job" mode of thinking.whatever, i don't like feminists who try to potty train me, but you already know that.

Phil-W
12-09-2006, 09:59 AM
Well. Do you consider 3 lines prohibiting the behaviour they are prohibiting "harping"? So far as I can they are a) prohibiting a behaviour and b) providing a cogent and short explanation for why they prohibit that behaviour (to discourage racist stereotype). I don't think you can legitimately claim that is falling into the description you provide.

Jenny, if they hadn't raised the issue of black men being stereotyped as sexual predators, the thought wouldn't have crossed my mind. Put in on the site and you raise its profile and make people aware of the stereotype who otherwise wouldn't have considered it.

Bang on enough about a stereotype and you have the reverse effect to what's intended.

How many customers p*ss you off by harping on about how they don't buy into the stereotype of a stripper, then going on to discuss it at great length?


Because the website is about street harassment, not determining the basis of crime in black men? If the site were about the latter, you might have a better argument. As it stands they just want to prohibit racist stereotype on their website.

Nope, it's a POLITICAL site, so the statement is on there to score political points. There are other way of preventing stereotyping that wouldn't alientate a significant percentage of the people who read the site.

What's better - to get your message across, or to score policital points? Sometimes you can't do both.


Uh huh. And like I said, barring a persuasive argument to the contrary people tend to think they are right. That doesn't mean they are inflexible to the argument. I can't agree that positively stating a political position on a website dedicated to the political position is impolite. Sorry.

Sorry, I thought the website was meant to be about harrassment.


Okay... but you've never even met these women. All you dislike is their politics, and you haven't even given that a fair read by your reckoning. So I'm going to dare to go back to my previous assertion and posit that you just don't like feminists.

Nope, I just don't like people who tell me what's politicaly correct. I behave as well as I know how to people in the hopes that they return the courtesy.

I resent being told how to think. I chose to give people respect because it comes from within me as part of my core values, not because a website tells me that I MUST think in this manner.

As I said earlier, I don't like people who are absolutely convinced they are right. The list includes religious fanatics, racists, politicians who want to interfere with my right to enjoy myself in a consensual manner in private, etc. etc, etc. They'll all get exactly the same anti response, including femanists who tell me how to think.

If they want to get me to change my viewpoint through reason, then they can have all the time and courtesy they want, and if they convince me that their viewpoint is better than mine, I'll change. I'd also like to think they'd have the courtesy to listen to me with a similarly open mind.


It does? Then why have we been arguing that these women somehow owe street harassers respect?

Nope, I'm not saying street harrassers should be respected - I think it's a contemptible activity. (Providing what's defined as harrassement is what 95% of the population [the great majority] agree is harrasssment).

I'm saying that the more political/militant websites opposing harrassment are counter productive, because they cause many well disposed people to switch off, thinking "gawd, just another politicised rant".

Phil.

evan_essence
12-11-2006, 10:52 PM
the funny thing is that i gave HB benefit of the doubt until i noticed some of the posts don't qualify as harassment.Hahahaha. Yeah, right. Let's review, shall we? What part of your initial post do you believe qualifies as giving the site the benefit of the doubt? Nah, don't answer that because it would simply be more revisionist history. Fact of the matter is you blasted the site before fully analyzing it. Your subsequent sophistry came once you had to reverse engineer a rational reason for blasting the site.

Go ahead. Make my day. Link to three entries that you think are legitimate examples of harassment and arguably deserve to be outed. No, on second thought again, never mind. I suspect I'd get links to Donkey Punch videos.

-Ev

mr_punk
12-16-2006, 12:43 PM
Nah, don't answer that because it would simply be more revisionist history. Fact of the matter is you blasted the site before fully analyzing it. Your subsequent sophistry came once you had to reverse engineer a rational reason for blasting the site.oh curses! you caught me. it was just pure luck that HB has, in part, an retarded political agenda (complete with pictures) which makes it the perfect target for patriarchal derision. who knew? yes, those wily feminists slipped that one by me.

Go ahead. Make my day. Link to three entries that you think are legitimate examples of harassment and arguably deserve to be outed. No, on second thought again, never mind. I suspect I'd get links to Donkey Punch videos.nah, i think "Swirlies" would be a more appropiate film or as one reviewer stated in his hearty endorsement of the movie, "dunk those dumb biatches heads".

LilSweetVixen
12-16-2006, 08:39 PM
Not strangers on the street shouting out offensive comments....Flirting is also not guys commenting on my breasts, ass, weight, hair or the colour of my pubic hair when I take my dog to the park.

They're different gradations of the same sexual enticement. You have to take the good with the bad. If you're sexual be prepared to attract both hot guys and rapists. You don't think gay men and transwomen go out with the understanding that they might not come back in one piece?



liberation is about liberating our sexuality for us - not for the purposes of whatever guy happens to be walking by.

What's the difference? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you talking about women spending the rest of their days masturbating? It's these types of comments that give me the sneaking suspicion that feminists don't know if they're afoot or horseback.

Jenny
12-16-2006, 09:18 PM
They're different gradations of the same sexual enticement. You have to take the good with the bad. If you're sexual be prepared to attract both hot guys and rapists.
A) No they are not. Guys who like you, who are attracted to you and who actually want you DON'T TREAT YOU LIKE THAT. Guys treat you like that when they are interested in treating you BADLY. When they are interested in treating you like you are inferior to them and like you're sexuality - based in appearance or behaviour - is there for THEM and not for YOU. Guys who actually want you don't rape you. And incidentally - what is with the dichotomy between "hot guy" and "rapist"? I mean those two things have nothing to do with each other; rape is defined by consent and lack thereof - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the status or appearance of the attacker. Not all rapists are ugly, and certainly not all ugly or non-hot guys are rapists. God that is fucked up. Further you don't "attract" rapists by being sexual. Rape is not about sexual appetite - there are always better, more convenient and legal (or in your guys's case less illegal) ways of getting laid.
B) Give me one good reason I have to take the good with the bad? I don't NEED sexual liberation for that. If I wanted that dichotomy (I could be freely sexual, but designated a public whore for use of anyone passing by) I could do that in 1952. Hell, I could do that in 1852. The entire POINT of sexual liberation is that I get the good (being sexual on my terms) without the bad (being forced to be sexual on someone else's terms). None of this has anything to do with "enticement" - in fact that whole line of thought is of the "what was she wearing" line of thought. That is REGRESSIVE, not PROGRESSIVE.


You don't think gay men and transwomen go out with the understanding that they might not come back in one piece?
I'm sorry? So now we're arguing that gay and tranny bashing is part of the natural order? Yes gay people are sometimes victimized, trans people more often. And that is a bad, bad thing; not an okay thing that is just a part of life. You might as well say to the women I used to work with at the women's shelter that "husbands sometimes beat their wives. You have to expect that when you get married." No! The fact that is happens is BAD! The fact that it happens frequently is indicative of a social failure, or worse yet a bad social system. It is something to be fought, not mindlessly acceded to.


What's the difference? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you talking about women spending the rest of their days masturbating? It's these types of comments that give me the sneaking suspicion that feminists don't know if they're afoot or horseback.
What's the difference? Like I said: I get to decide who I choose to be sexual with. Sexual liberation is not to simply make me available to whatever man happens to want me. Because that is not very liberating. In fact, I daresay it is less so than the demands of chastity that preceeded it. Again - sexual liberation is to give me, as a woman, sexual subjectivity; not simply make me a more available and convenient sexual object. Further - what geese and what ganders? I'm not saying that men are there to be available to me. In fact, I firmly believe that men should get to choose who to be sexual with, and I think with men, just as much as women consent should govern (I got very worked up over a thread in pink in whcih practically everyone was arguing that sexual arousal in men defined consent - I was like "I don't care if he has an erection: if he says "No" then "no means no") all sexual activity. So I agree. Good for fowl of all sexes. Again - when a guy actually wants you he does not approach with a line like "I can smell you" or "Nice tits". Please, I beg you - do not interpret that as a compliment ANYMORE.

mr_punk
12-18-2006, 06:16 PM
I got very worked up over a thread in pink in whcih practically everyone was arguing that sexual arousal in men defined consent - I was like "I don't care if he has an erection: if he says "No" then "no means no"really? so, this is what it feels like. i feel so empowered!!! seriously, you took a break from your castrating duties to defend our honor? unbelievable.

Jenny
12-18-2006, 06:30 PM
really? so, this is what it feels like. i feel so empowered!!! seriously, you took a break from your castrating duties to defend our honor? unbelievable.Not your honour. I regard your honour as being in its own enclave and I am not getting near enough to closely examine it, let alone defend it. Everyone else's honour may stay.

mr_punk
12-19-2006, 05:03 PM
Not your honour. I regard your honour as being in its own enclave and I am not getting near enough to closely examine it, let alone defend it.smart girl. if you did get close enough examine it. it would probably donkey punch you.

xdamage
12-20-2006, 06:27 PM
They're different gradations of the same sexual enticement.


Agreed, it's a grey scale where you attract some people you really want to attract, a lot you that you could take or ignore, and a few you really don't want to attract.



You have to take the good with the bad. If you're sexual be prepared to attract both hot guys and rapists.

Sure, like I would like to be able to drive and park my good car wherever I like in the city, but I don't. I'd like to be able to dress up and walk anywhere in a city, wear my good watch, show off my financial status to attract the opposite sex wherever and whenever I want, but I don't. I'm going to attract not only those I want to attract, but many that I don't. I can whine about it indefinitely, and the reality won't change. The reality of the social situation is far greater than my personal wants in the matter. So I face facts. If my behavior (or looks) attracts humans to me for whatever reasons (sex, or money) it's going to attract those I want to attract and those I don't.

The fact is we live in societies where some have more then others. Whether we are taking about person who is behaving in sexual ways in front of those who desire sex, or eating food around in front of those who are hungry, or waving money around in front of those who are needy, the 'haves' run the risk of attracting 'have nots' that are so desperate that they don't care if their behavior makes the 'haves' uncomfortable. And I really don't see that ever changing. It's just human nature. Really if the HBers wanted to do something constructive, focus that effort on improving the social situation in the cities for everyone. A decent life for all tends to do more then anything to improve social protections for everyone.

LilSweetVixen
12-20-2006, 10:21 PM
Guys who actually want you don't rape you. Rape is not about sexual appetite - there are always better, more convenient and legal...ways of getting laid.

How could rape not be about sexual appetite? It's clearly just the deepest end of the same pool of lust. That's why there are so many gray areas like date rape. Maybe the most bizarre forms like Bosnian rape camps...


B) Give me one good reason I have to take the good with the bad? I don't NEED sexual liberation for that. If I wanted that dichotomy (I could be freely sexual, but designated a public whore for use of anyone passing by) I could do that in 1952. Hell, I could do that in 1852.


I see your point. But there's a difference between facing unfair consequences for freedoms and taking risks.


Again - when a guy actually wants you he does not approach with a line like "I can smell you" or "Nice tits". Please, I beg you - do not interpret that as a compliment ANYMORE.

Joy is resistance. And you can't ask for freedom from the powers that be and then run to authority at the first sign of trouble. Liberation also means not being sheltered for better or worse.

Jenny
12-20-2006, 10:51 PM
Okay, I literally just stepped in from work, and I had a weird night , so I should probably wait until tomorrow to post this. But since when do I exhibit good judgement about this kind of thing?


How could rape not be about sexual appetite? It's clearly just the deepest end of the same pool of lust. That's why there are so many gray areas like date rape. Maybe the most bizarre forms like Bosnian rape camps...
It is a sexual appetite insofar as it is expressed through sexual means; but if men were just horny there are better, more convenient more legal ways of relieving it. (Just ask around. mr._punk will tell you). Date rape is not a grey area. I'm just saying - rape by someone you know is just as unconsensual. Grey zone sex is sex that is hard to define either as consensual or unconsensual (situations of high pressure, for example). Not just some guy who knows you who decides that you've opened your legs enough to owe him.


[QUOTE]I see your point. But there's a difference between facing unfair consequences for freedoms and taking risks.
Except as you've defined, the same act and the same consequence apply, except that as a result of "liberation" (which, by your reckoning is not very liberating) ALL women get to face the "unfair consequences" instead of the one's that take risks.

Further, I might add - walking down the street (the activity under contention here) cannot be considered taking a risk. In fact, I don't really see what is a risk. What do you regard as "risky"? Like, in what circumstances does the woman "really have it coming" and lose her right complain about non-consensual behaviour?


Joy is resistance.
That is NOT what Alice Walker meant.


And you can't ask for freedom from the powers that be and then run to authority at the first sign of trouble. Liberation also means not being sheltered for better or worse.
What? This is absurd. Sorry hon, but it is ridiculous! On so many levels. The first of which being that the women in question aren't running to authority. The second of which being, what? Again, wanting to be able to have consensual sex means that I shouldn't be allowed to complain when the unconsensual is forced upon me? Where is the rationale there? Like outside of simply asserting - if you ever spread your legs expect to admit the whole world - why can I not insist that my consensual sexual activity is private and personal and should be treated as such while unconsensual sexual activity is criminal and should be treated as such? I should ABSOLUTELY be sheltered from that, just as every other person is. We demand freedom in terms of controlling private property - it doesn't mean that there should be no laws against theft. I may sell, give away or otherwise alienate anything I own (say cash) there are very few circumstances in which the government may interfere with that. However, it is still a criminal act if someone just takes it. Why do you regard your body as being less deserving of protection?

Honey, you need to go back and re-read your separatist feminists. Now everyone who thinks that Dworkin and MacKinnon have no relevance in society can look both to Maryland and you. I mean, essentially what you are saying is that because women are sexually "liberated" their consent means LESS not MORE than it did before. That women do not (any more than before) get to choose who to be sexual with, but that instead of being relegating to "bad" and "good" women, for this purpose we are all "bad" women. In a nutshell - we ALL deserve it. Further, regarding lack of consent as so meaningly as serious impact on consent. Like, if you can't not-consent, how can you consent? If saying "no" doesn't mean anything significant, what does "yes" mean? Listening to young women talk like this breaks my heart.

xdamage
12-21-2006, 08:48 AM
How could rape not be about sexual appetite? It's clearly just the deepest end of the same pool of lust. That's why there are so many gray areas like date rape. Maybe the most bizarre forms like Bosnian rape camps...


Again, agreed.

J's problem here is the same problem most people have with understanding human behavior. They confuse their own individuals goals and want with how nature works.

The sex drive is one of the strongest and most successful genetic drives, having developed over billions of years. But genes don't give a shit about individual wants, social conventions, cheaper/safer/better ways. Those are all personal luxuries that we are lucky enough to enjoy in a modern, relatively wealthy culture, but they are not essential to the propogation of the species.

The other mistake J makes is this notion that people should be concerned about her as an individual, and that the sex drive is somehow related to what she wants personally. Again, that's pure luxury, and not at all required to survive or thrive over the billions of years are genes have evolved. Nature doesn't give a shit about the wants of individuals. Individuals come and go, but the genes are passed on, and if they are beneficial, they stand a greater chance of surviving and thriving then if not.

Fortunately, what individuals want and what works (nature) are not always mutually exclusive and so to some degree we can have some of both, but there are no perfect societies, no utopias, no groups of perfect people There are always going to be people in large societies that are driven more by their genetic wants then by social conventions, even at the expense of other individuals wants.

It's also not necessary that individuals have an understanding of their own nature to survive. They can believe all kinds of mystical and social nonesense, they can be completely oblivious to their own genetic natures, and still manage to have sex, have children, protect their children, eat, breathe air, and so on. Understanding our own nature is also a luxury.

Phil-W
12-22-2006, 06:46 AM
How could rape not be about sexual appetite? It's clearly just the deepest end of the same pool of lust. That's why there are so many gray areas like date rape. Maybe the most bizarre forms like Bosnian rape camps...

Rape is also about power. How else would you explain the rape of 80 year old women. No sexual allure there, just a desire to hurt and humiliate.

The rape camps? I think the rape was more a matter of ideology than lust. I hate my opponent's religion, therefore I will rape their women to show my power over/contempt for them.

One of the worst cases of mass rape was the Red army invading Germany in 1945. There's no question but that the rapes were an act of revenge for what the German army did to Russia in 1941 - 1943.


Joy is resistance. And you can't ask for freedom from the powers that be and then run to authority at the first sign of trouble. Liberation also means not being sheltered for better or worse.

There will always be predators out there, and in the absence of authority predators predate.

It's not a question of being liberated, it's a question of standards of behavior. I behave towards others, as I hope others will behave towards me. As examples, I won't intentionally make a remark that you'll find offensive, nor will I take advantage of you if you're drunk.

Not everyone has my attitude, and at some point you need 'authority' to protect you. The average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman (sexual dimorphism) and if there is not a degree of shelter then you will (at the least) be on the end of offensive behaviour.

Want a simple example of what happens when the rules change? Strip clubs. People feel free there to tell you you've got nice tits, or a great ass - yet it's a completely different standard of behaviour to that the outside world.

(And what do you think would happen to you in a strip club without 'authority' (bouncers) to protect you?

Phil.

xdamage
12-22-2006, 08:28 AM
Rape is also about power. How else would you explain the rape of 80 year old women. No sexual allure there, just a desire to hurt and humiliate.


Well, again, you have to be very careful about using the extremes to try and prove or understand something about human behavior in general.

Think bell curve. In a world with a population of nearly 7 billion, there are going to be extremes on the bell curve, including for example people that get sexually turned on by cannibalism (both eating and being eaten).

And honestly, you're probably wrong that there is no sexual desire involved when a man rapes an 80 year old woman - it's not something you or I can relate to (anymore then we relate to getting turned on by cannibalism) but that doesn't mean there is no sexual component, at least in some cases.

It's true that some guys do get off emotionally, and sexually on dominating, even hurting women. But some also get off on the power they feel dominating other men in violent behavior. That's true of all ages, as well as consensual sex (dominance and dominant play is common in sex play).

Also you need to be careful not to imply something through omission. Let's not forget that people (in particular men) have a long history of being willing to commit acts of violence against other men (as well as women) to get what they want, be it land, property, money, food, or sex. That men can be violent, take what they want from others, even when it hurts others, is not something that is specifically directed at women. But you wouldn't assume it's about power when a guy mugs an 80 year old woman for her money, you would say the guy wants money, and secondarily he is willing to take it violently. OTOH because you can't relate to a guy who gets some sexual thrill out of the thought of having sex with old women, you assume the opposite when it comes to a guy raping an 80 year old.

BTW, search the internet. There are a lot of porn sites for guys that are turned on by older women and grannies. It's apparently more of a common fetish then you might assume.