I'm guessing that if those cat-calling men were in the presence of their conservative boss, or their elderly grandma, they wouldn't engage in the cat calls. When giving in to their impulses has consequences, they manage to control their impulses. The fact that they give in to those impulses at other times is clearly because society is failing to provide consequences at those other times. If rapists had absolutely no impulse control, then they would attack women in public, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses and police officers. They don't. Doing so would have serious consequences, and when faced with consequences, rapists manage to control their impulses. Now, that's accepting the premise that rape is about animal satisfaction, which is not a premise that I accept. I definitely believe that it's about power and control and the joy of degrading women. But even if it weren't, it's clear that rapists can choose to control their impulses when society gives them sufficient reason, in the form of consequences, to do so.
What consequences should there be? I don't see how people manage to make this into a contentious issue. Generally when it's happened to people I know they've shook their heads and got on with their lives, no harm done. I fail to see how it's any different from a group of women making obvious remarks about a guy, and no-one in their right mind is suggesting there should be 'consequences' for that.
Sure, there should. Nobody, woman or man, should be communicating assessments of complete strangers' physical assets in a tone loud enough for anyone other than the assessor's immediate companions to hear If it happened in any office workplace that I've ever had anything to do with, the consequences would be immediate and significant--a word from the boss, a stronger word and a writeup if it happened again, very quickly escalating to firing. Similar consequences would be appropriate for any work situation. If it happens in a restaurant or other business, the offender should be asked to leave. If it happens in public outside a workplace or business, it should be possible to treat it like any other behavior-based misdemeanor, like public drunkenness, urinating in public, panhandling where that's illegal, and so on.
I simply don't see why it should be a misdemeanour for either gender. Yes it may be offensive, but we can't go round banning people from giving offence. You can't legislate respect, and at the end of the day the harm done is at worst minimal and at best non-existent.
We're probably not going to agree here, and that's OK, but just to try to clarify: It's not primarily about offense or respect. It's largely about safety, or a sense of safety. I think that men rarely fear for their safety the way that women fear for their safety when around men. Men are rarely sexually assaulted. But what about a different context? What about getting robbed? That does happen to men. A scenario: Imagine that you park the car and start walking down the street toward some destination and a group of three or four rough-looking guys start calling out to you. They comment on your car--"Hey, buddy, that looks expensive! What do you pay for that thing?" And on your clothes--"What'd you pay for that suit?" And they ask for things, "Hey, how about some walking-around money, huh? Oh, come on, just a twenty apiece, you look _so_ rich, pal! OK, then, how about that watch? That's a fine watch; I'd like to have it." It happens every time you go to that neighborhood, to a lot of neighborhoods, a lot of places that you need to go; you can't avoid it. And you know of men, lots of men, that have been robbed, beaten up, sometimes killed. It's happened to friends. Maybe it happened to you, earlier in your life. It's a real risk that happens very frequently in your city. And you complain to someone in authority and they say, "They said that you look rich--that's a compliment; what are you complaining about? Look, if you're going to be offended about a compliment, there's nothing we can do about that. We can't legislate respect." And you can't get them to understand that it's not about a compliment, it's not even about an insult. It's about people who want something from you, and the fear that they're going to take that thing. It's about people taking away your sense of safety, without facing any consequences whatsoever for doing so. A guy can be arrested for urinating in an alley, but there's not a single thing that the police will do about this.
I didn't say that it derives from a person's judgment. It is quite funny how the internet works. I am staunchly against altruism (all true, relativism), and yet, you continue to insist I am. Your first assumption was wrong. I said right and wrong derive directly from the very fact that a person own their mind. I.e, through logic. This goes back to what I was saying before. They don't think their cat-calls out. Many even think it's flattering. Few have a world view centered around cat-calling. Many wouldn't deny that they viewed you as object of pleasure if you confronted them. Yes, my statement was a little simplistic. However, I do believe that rape, murder, and other crimes happen partly because of a damaged ability to control impulses. I didn't say that rape is 'natural', but it certainly isn't a recent invention; it's very common among animals. The motivation for rape is primal, animalistic, and when somebody can't understand their own moral code, they assume that every impulse is good. I agree. I never said it was the norm. Please, stop assuming things about my argument. I never said anything about anger. I merely recognized the very small impact my anger actually has. And I certainly didn't imply it got a free pass. Sadly, these attitudes are deeply ingrained into the human psyche. Consider the family. One calls their spouse "my husband" or "my wife". They call their children "our children". Possession is the human means of recognizing value. Now, before you jump on me for that, consider exactly what I said. I did not say that men treating women as objects was acceptable or logical. I did not say that anybody is actually someone else's property. I was reporting facts, not offering support or opinion. All my words implied that ancient societal norms were usual in ancient times. The definition of usual does not include 'all' or 'always' -- which would be your description. Said what? That before mechanization strength was more valuable. Do you deny this? Stop taking facts as insults. When I pointed out manpower, it was not to say that no other groups worked. The word simply reflects the standard of labor. One would not wish to call for more 'boypower' because they were not the primary labor force. One creates genera terms with the general case in mind. Also, Christianity is hardly the only man-centric institution to come out of the distant past. Roman government was way more sexist. The area of the world least sexist is where Christian ideals were most prevalent. Now, the idea that the word manpower comes from the bible is absurd. Men moved things. When you could move something, you needed more men and their physical strength. The concept extends, phrases become condensed, and you have a useful expression.
Hah! Ban compliments. Awesome. You do that and you open up the flood gates, next thing you know society is walking on egg shells, say something kind hearted to the wrong person and you get clapped in irons. How is courtship supposed to exist at all if a wo/man gets hit on, doesn't like the guy/girl, and can then take legal action against them... I'd never speak to a woman again. I don't know a single girl who hasn't dealt with one creepy guy or another in their life, just as I only know a handful of men who haven't been uncomfortably pursued by a woman. Your scenario is very appealing, but you've given pretty much 0 thought to what this legislation would do to the community as a whole. Do you actually think that these "rough looking guys" would give two shits about a law that would be nearly impossible to enforce? The only people who would be influenced by it are good natured people who then have to worry about their compliments being taken the wrong way. Not to mention it would clog up the courts with a bunch of BS lawsuits like "This guy said my necklace looked nice, he must want sex or my necklace" and "That girl told me my new jeans were cool, but they are my jeans, she can't have them." It would be yet another distraction from catching actual criminals. In australia, intimidatory talk like in your scenario is illegal, I believe it comes under an assault charge - No, a lawman probably isn't going to act on it because it's a waste of time, but if it happened every time the person went to the neighbourhood, and that person pressed the police long enough there is a very good chance that they would send a cop to sort them out. Much more likely if it was a woman in the same position.
I think that that's a large assumption. You seem to be assuming that: 1) Strength is the most valuable thing for the survival/well-being of ancient people. 2) The dominance of men is based on their value in terms of survival/well-being. But why are we assuming that male dominance is based on value rather than, well, ability to dominate? A man's family didn't necessarily obey him because he could protect them from attackers, but may instead have done so because if they didn't, he would attack them. Yes, superior strength made it easier to attack them, but that isn't about their well-being, but about his. So I'm questioning (2). I also question (1). I don't know how much of the labor of ancient survival requires strength. You need strength to cut down a tree, but not to trap a rabbit. To drag home a deer, but not to weed a field. To plow a field...but the man isn't doing the plowing, an ox or other animal is doing that, and the ox certainly isn't in charge. It also sounds like you're assuming that: 3) As a privileged group's value decreases, that privileged group will recognize that their privileges should decrease as well. That, I would say, is emphatically not true. People want to keep what they have, and they will put a great deal of effort into manufacturing beliefs to justify keeping it. To amble back to the Bechdel test, we're certainly not going to see male actors, or their agents, saying, "You know, there's no good reason why male actors should dominate films. Let's change that and give away some of our work and money to female actors. It's only fair."
This argument makes me sick. Are you kidding me? Compliments? No. Staring at my butt and shouting "OH BOOOOY!" is NOT a compliment. Anyone who thinks that a compliment can go rot. I am done with this sick excuse for a conversation. This entire thing proves my point. I could take you people by the hand and show you the negative affects of these beliefs and behaviors and it would not change a damn thing. So I'm bowing out of this because I know it's not going to do any good and I'm really on the verge of losing my temper. I'd prefer to stay on this forum and not be banned for a personal attack seeing as I enjoy this forum and the majority of the people on it.
That is rather silly. Do you believe that for a medieval village, the women didn't care which group of men was in charge. Do the women of Troy shrug as Hector dies? No. Because Hector and the Trojan men, no matter how male-dominated the society is, see their women as people. They are in love with them, and vice versa. The Greek men will simply rape and enslave them. As for No. 1, yes, that is true to an extent (I never said 'most'). It is simple physics. I think no. 2 is actually based on far, far distant tradition dating back to humanity's beginnings as apes. Many apes have similar structures, with males competing for mates via strength. Also, I never said male dominance was linked to their value for survival. I said that man-centric cultural norms came from a time when men had a monopoly on force. Deer aren't the only things upon which force can be applied. How does one tame an animal in the first place? To plow even with an ox is very difficult. Farming in general requires physical strength aplenty (not to say that it's impossible for a woman to do it). Physical strength is useful. Nope, didn't assume that. Edit: Terra, compliments can be taken as insults. You yourself pointed out that it depended on context.
I wasn't talking about _which_ men were in charge, but the idea of men being in charge at all. This doesn't seem to be at all responsive to what I said. And I'm finding that "silly", despite its smallness as an insult, lowers the courtesy level of the discussion to the point that I'm abruptly not interested.
It's been said twice already, but it's worth repeating: Catcalls are not compliments. They are harassment. In fact, catcalls are a big part of rape culture. The mentality of "I can objectify any woman I want in public," is closely related to the mentality of, "I can have sex with any woman I want."
Not everyone who catcalls is a rapist, but every rapist, is a rapist. I'd be inclined to focus on destroying rapists rather than quietening crass, working class men.
You're missing the point. Rape culture is the big issue, and rapist and catcalls are all part of that culture.
Yeah, you're right - sexual assault needs to be targeted with preventative measures as much, if not more, than the handling the aftermath. Just to clarify, that wasn't sarcasm, I thought about it while having a smoke and I don't even know what I was thinking.
This and ten times this. Compliments: when that nice guy at the party tells you you're cute. When your husband/boyfriend tells you look stunning. It's not a bunch of guys whistling and calling after you "nice ass!"
That's your opinion, I'm sure there'd be some women who wouldn't mind it as much... I don't know any but I'm sure they're out there. My point is, you can't be jamming up the courts and wasting police time whenever some moron tells a girl she's got a nice ass. Women have to accept that a percentage (which I'm semi-certain is a minority) of men are boarish idiots, and just get on with their lives. Feminism should be about rising above this kind of petty crap, and focussing on things like equal pay (which is statistically still an issue) and improving female representation in high powered jobs, (such as the government, CEO and executive) which are mostly held by men.
I used to tune it out. That's the way the world works, I, as a woman, am an object for random guys to whistle and shout at. I don't even dress suggestively. I wear combat boots, not heels. And still. Maybe because of the sexual violence women face (more often than men), maybe because of that, these catcalls make me (and other girls) feel threatened and uncomfortable, and it's hard to take them as compliments. Yeah, I get that point. I wonder if anyone here actually seriously suggested that? I'm sure these boarish idiots can be "educated" without fining them or involving the police, whose resources are tight enough as they are.
There's a big difference between a group of guys circling for a down-payment on your continued mobility and a group of men calling out or whistling. The former's happened to me a number of times, the latter happens to my girlfriend a lot. I think we're both in agreement the latter's safer by far. I get what you're saying about the sense of safety, but if someone really is out to threaten your safety then their intended actions are already illegal: there's no need to legislate against things which may imply intent to commit an act when the act itself is already illegal, especially when that implication is all a matter of perspective. Generally-speaking a guy who wolf-whistles doesn't actually mean any harm. He almost certainly doesn't intend to assault anybody. Treating him as a potential sex attacker is a gross overreaction.
I disagree. I think it should be legal for women to mace (CN, OC, whatever) such men in return for making them feel threatened and unsafe. If it was legalized now, of course there would be an "adjustment period" before society caught up, but I think eventually the men would learn, because, well, it's like what experienced cops/bouncers etc. say: to "get through" to a crook, you have to speak their language, you have to speak "Crook." Boarish men don't understand nice talk, it's not their language, but pain is. Sure, some might get all pissy about getting maced, but if they get handy, already existing self-defense laws apply (i.e. the woman could shoot him, e.g. if he tries to assault her in retaliation, especially since she'd have enough time to wrap her hand around a concealed firearm while the guy recovers from the blast of OC... or she could just run away immediately after macing him if it's possible). I'd love to live in a polite society like that. And if I was single and on the prowl, I wouldn't mind if a slightly trigger happy girl maced me once in a blue moon if that's the price we'd have to pay for women to feel safe and secure; it's not that terrible to get maced, just uncomfortable for a while and you look silly all puffed up and red in the face.
I'm not saying you claimed otherwise, but I don't think it's so bad to be a little paranoid (for both, men and women), especially during nighttime and if one is alone...
I can't see cat-calls as threatening in the least. Rude, of course. But someone walking past a construction site and getting that - during broad daylight with other people on the street? Really? Totally not the same as being in an iffy neighborhood at night and having a random gang of unkempt thugs making comments about your possessions/person. And mace? So when that woman behind me in the checkout line kept pushing me I should've turned around and maced her because, after all, that's battery! I think a reality check is in line here. Threat is determined not by words, but by the circumstances surrounding those words.
