This implies that men weren't useful for protection at all. That women are equally abused no matter which 'man' is in control. Men, in chaotic times, are the major defensive force protecting their women and children from other men. So, superior strength in a group is not just about 'his' well-being. I called that silly because I find it strangely sexist -- that all males who died in defensive wars were simply trying to maintain their tyranny over 'their' women. That implication, even if unintentional, is very insulting to me.
This might also be quite culture related. I must admit that in Finland you get cat-calls mostly at night and from drunks. In broad daylight from men from a construction yard? Maybe back in the '80s, but not nowadays.
Which illustrates what I was saying - it's not the words, it's the circumstances. At night, a drunk - threatening. Daylight, construction site - annoying at best. I just think it's important to realize and accept that people, in general, will be annoying and act like jerks. They will be rude and obnoxious. It's not confined to men or women, old or young, rich or poor, black or white, etc etc. Individuals can tell these folks they're being idiots - but the government should never do that.
I'm not sure it does. I didn't say I wasn't threatened by Finnish working men shouting at me in broad daylight (they haven't though, this is hypothetical). Actually, considering how incredibly rare that is, I would feel really weirded out, even threatened if there weren't other people around (which is not a given in a sparsely populated country and when most people work indoors). Meh, I'm nit-picking. But my point is, you can't generalize here, and it's not as black-and-white as you implied in your post. Daylight, construction site - can be more than annoying, and not to just one skittish individual. However, I do agree that the circumstances play a big part in the situation.
That's hardly the same situation: when a man is being offensive towards a woman, there is always the danger that he does something worse to her that she can't prevent. It doesn't really work the same way with the roles reversed. I don't know if you're a guy or a gal, but especially if you're a guy: we can take a shove, a punch, a faceful of mace. What's the big deal? And pushing in a checkout line does not constitute battery, or at least not in most countries I know of (unless it's a full-force shove. Was it?). And if you're a woman, well, if it's another woman who's pushing you, you can confront her with less physical ways because she likely couldn't overpower you like most men could. Hence the suggestion for mace: weapons level the playing ground for women when it comes to violence between a man and a woman. Same sex controntations don't usually require that drastic measures if it's one on one.
Seriously? You should have seen the woman who took care of my mother - 6'4", close to 300 lbs. Confront her? Not on your life! That woman behind me in the checkout line could've been on something, with a knife in her pocket - pretending women cannot be as dangerous as men for other women is really wearing blinders, especially today. Maybe it's my life experiences coming into play here. I've been around women who could take out a man easily, even without mace or other weapons; I've seen bar fights where the women did a lot more damage than the men. Hell, I knocked a guy a head taller than me on his butt. I've seen big burly men who acted tough and ran at the first sign of retaliation. Words don't mean diddly unless you view them within context.
Big things like equal pay are of course, very important, but we can't ignore the little things. In the "Broken Window Theory," even one small broken window in a neighborhood makes it more likely for thieves to break in to other houses and escalate to bigger crimes. Catcalling is a small broken window in gender equality. There are more ways to battle rape culture than with the courts. I'm not even sure if catcalling is a legal offense, but it's wrong nonetheless. A bystander challenging the catcaller in public might be enough. Maybe it's the public's duty to challenge it as it happens, and the individual's duty to make sure that he doesn't do it himself. Also, the idea of "Women have to accept that a percentage of men are boarish idiots" is related to "Women have to accept that a percentage of men are rapists." Accepting either of them is passively condoning it; we need constant vigilance to challenge it and eventually eradicate it. Like you said before, prevention is a key part of the equation.
Seriously. And I never said there aren't exceptions to almost everything, such as exceptionally big/tough women or exceptionally weak/wimpy men, but that's beside the point, isn't it? As are your examples of your mom's caretaker or the incident in the shop: self-defense laws would still apply just as they do today even if girls were allowed to mace catcalling wankers: if a person of any sex/age/size attacks any person of any sex/age/size without justification and with the intent to kill or seriously harm them, the victim would be in the right to defend themselves, even with lethal force if no less is enough to save them from harm. That also applies from a legal standpoint in most civilized countries. That has little to do with the subject, however. I would guess that a 6'4/300lbs aggressive, combat-savvy bruiser woman could feel comfortable even while being subjected to catcalling, but I maintain the average girl ought to have the right to mace the wanker.
There was a time when the "policing" was done by society in general, when shame attached to boorish behavior and parents chided their children to be better behaved. Unfortunately, that "shaming" instinct was a pretty broad brush and it was turned against a lot of people in ways we now find cringe worthy. As it stands now, there is a segment of our culture that openly celebrates boorish behavior, but the majority of folks laugh at it and move on. Some don't. Catcalls and wolf whistles and boorish comments still happen on the street, but they happen a lot less than they used to in the places they do the most damage - in workplaces and classrooms. And that's because the law is evolving to impose serious penalties for that kind of harassment. At the same time, it has (at least in corporate America) also fostered an atmosphere in which a man thinks twice (or maybe even three times) before telling a female coworker she looks nice. Before I left my job in management, I found myself complimenting my female staff members in much the way that women usually compliment one another, by reference to something specific - nice dress, I like your hair, etc.
So I should have the right to mace someone who breaks in line, who calls me stupid, who gives me the finger - anyone who acts boorishly should be maced. Good grief. btw - should the average woman have the right to mace these people, too? Or is that reserved for children and adolescents?
And the law does look at the difference between simple rudeness and harassment, believe it or not. Companies and management may not, but I've noticed they tend to go overboard when there's even a thought of a lawsuit.
Yes, exactly my point. Corporations hate any kind of risk, any kind uncertainty. Makes for lots of stupid policies.
If you can't spot the different social connotations between cutting in line and catcalling, I don't know if there's much point in continuing this discourse. Not to belabor the point, but I'll give it one more go: the latter can be a source of needless distress at least, a prelude to rape at worst. Why should we condone it? Can't you really notice any difference in how a girl might feel when her friend calls her silly joke stupid or when she's passing a bar at dusk, alone, and a drunken guy having a smoke by the door calls after her how he'd want to pound her ass so hard she won't be able to sit for a week? And people should just accept this? Oh, that's just how some guys are, boys will be boys etc? Edited to add: btw, about complimenting women at work: I see no reason to go beyond "nice dress" or "that a new haircut? Looks cool," in intimacy unless you're actually hitting on the lady. And even if I was, I'd rather ask her out for a pint or cuppa and save the sexier small talk for when we're off the clock instead of complimenting her gluteus maximus while she's filling up the copy machine.
Who's condoning it? I'm saying mere words are not a reason to mace anyone. Of course there's a difference. And the bar, at dusk, alone, with a drunk is much much different than some guy on the street during daylight with other people around. And this last is on a par with someone being rude, such as pushing in front of the line. Perhaps I'm not the one who's not getting the difference. Words are just that - words. Someone who is going to mug you or rape you doesn't need to say anything - the danger is present without words. It's the situation that's dangerous, not the words. People shouldn't be allowed to physically assault someone simply because they said something sexist or racist or just not very nice.
So are rape jokes okay? Rape jokes and catcalls contribute to a culture that condones rape. It's a culture that says, "I can objectify a woman and do what I please with no regard to her feelings." If you eliminate the words, you weaken the culture, and rape becomes less okay. Most rape isn't physical assault, it's not a man jumping on you from a bush or from around a corner. Most rape happens with acquaintances & friends. Many rapists don't even realize they are raping the other person because of cultural ideas, such as, "If she didn't say no, then that's a yes."
I'm briefly responding to this part. Defending a group against outside aggressors is good. Attacking members of the group to command obedience from them is bad. The two acts use the same attributes and skills, but they are entirely separate actions. My pointing out that men may have originally won authority through aggression doesn't negate the value of defense--especially when the defense is performed by those men's descendents. (That is, conquering a group this month and defending them from the next conquerer next month tends to undermine the moral value of that defense.) But, similarly, defense doesn't negate the wrong of aggression within the group. They remain separate actions, and one does not justify the other. A man can defend his wife and children and still come home and accept that his wife should have equal voice in the affairs of their shared life, and that she and the other women in the group should have equal voice in the affairs of that group. The good deeds of soldiers were and are valuable, and as a society (US society, that is) we should be deeply ashamed that we are so miserly in rewarding them. But there is also value in the good deeds of farming and gathering food and fuel and making clothing and medicine and building houses and animal husbandry and preserving food, and of inventions in all of these areas. Any number of skills and contributions are essential to the survival of society. Particularly in the past, many of them were also painful and dangerous, and required courage and sacrifice. Some of them, by the way, were performed by _men_, and required strength. But those skills didn't lead to ruling power. The fact that the valuable skill that, in the past, reaped the most power happens to have been the valuable skill that makes it possible to seize that power, does not strike me as a concidence. A man (or woman) who defends society has earned a great deal of honor and respect, and when harmed in that defense, has earned the right to be cared for by that society--and it is, again, shameful that our society doesn't fulfill that obligation. But they have not earned obedience or power. And if they take it anyway, by force, that taking is not justified by their earlier good deeds. OK, that didn't end up being so brief.
Good grief - is anyone reading what I'm actually writing here? I have never said the catcalls were okay, never implied that rape jokes are okay - what I've been saying all along is that catcalls in and of themselves are not dangerous enough to warrant macing. Just to clarify that: Catcalls in and of themselves are not dangerous enough to warrant macing.
Well, I'm not arguing for macing unless there appears to be an immediate physical threat, but I am arguing for consequences. A ticket, a misdemeanor conviction, being escorted away, being banned from a location, a night in jail for repeated offenses--those sorts of consequences. No, it won't be possible to enforce consequences for even a fraction of incidents, but I suspect that merely the _possibility_ of having to disclose a conviction for this sort of thing to future employers would affect some people's behavior.
Have you ever been maced? People have different responses to it and some have actually died. A tiny percentage aren't even affected by it. It is illegal to carry mace in Australia for a very good reason; that shit is powerful, dangerous stuff. If some girl maced me out of misunderstanding, or even in an attempt to mace another person I'd sue her until her childrens childrens children owed me money... Being maced really ruins your day. What you're offering is in essence corporal punishment, exacted by a vigilante. I didn't have time to read through everyone elses responses so it might have been said; but this would open up loop holes in the law that would hurt more people than it would empower women. Something that is a real problem, and basically unheard of is domestic violence against men. They are promoting it more and more, asking men who are in an physically abusive relationship to come forward and report the women. But it essentially emasculates the man so it's very much an up-hill battle. You are giving these offenders a legal tool to exact their abuse. When it comes to female victims of domestic violence, you are basically giving the police yet another excuse not to respond to calls. "He hit you? Lady, just buy some mace, OK?... Yep, sure he's got a knife, get some mace. Goodbye."
This thread is so pointless. All it's doing is creating fires that have no reason to exist in the first place.
This thread has revealed a lot about people's mindsets, which in itself, I guess, is not such a bad thing. It's difficult to keep cool when such flammable and controversial issues are discussed. The best way to keep 'em civil is to stay civil (I know, I know, I don't always practice what I preach either, but it's possible to try). P.s. Prompted by some of the discussion here: to anyone who's still uncertain of what rape culture is and how you're contributing to it (inadvertently), please take a look at this blog post. It's pretty eyeopening, and shows that there're certain issues with which one might not want to play the devil's advocate...
Let's agree to disagree on this point. If words are just that - words, would it be okay for pedophiles to start catcalling after kids as long as they do it sober and in broad daylight? Or would that cause needless distress to kids, distress that they shouldn't have to deal with in the first place? I know my suggestion (macing) is too extreme in most people's opinion, so how about we move on from that (since no politician would ever legalize it anyway) and go with something ChickenFreak suggested? My point is, there should be some repercussions from catcalling. Yes, even when the man is just being his boarish self. Times have changed from what they were 20-30 years ago. We should try to change with them, for the better. Dude, seriously, all around the world soldiers, cops, and even mall guards are exposed to mace in their training (probably at least 75% of Finland's men have been exposed to OC or NC in their compulsory stint in the military). It's very nasty, yes, I agree, but not such a big deal. If it were, don't you think we'd have seriously injured/dead soldiers, cops, and guards popping up in news day in, day out? Yeah, some may have adverse reactions to it, but, then again, if they were exposed because they were harassing women, they'd learn a pretty good lesson. And you suing a girl for all she's got 'cause she maced you because of a misunderstanding, well, I guess that just goes to show you and I are from different worlds and probably ought to accept that we'll likely never see eye to eye on this one. No biggie. I know this is a problem here and there, but I can't help to think most cases would be fixed if the men just grew a pair and left the abusive women. And unlike most women, most men can actually defend themselves against an enraged female (note that I'm saying "most," not "all"). Coming from a broken home and knowing many like myself, I know that growing up with divorced and separated parents beats the hell out of living with both and having your home be the stage of daily/nightly fights, both physical and mental. I never said mace was a sufficient response to physical violence when it's about a woman defending herself against a man.
That's in a controlled circumstance with medics on hand. A guy died here about a year ago after being maced repeatedly by the police. Cops who are trained to use the weapon correctly and safely to apprehend a criminal.. What happens when you give it to a girl who's only reason for carrying it is to injure sleazy men? Scenario A: A guy wolf whistles girl, girl maces him, the guy trips, cracks his skull, dies. Don't care about the guy? Consider that the girl is now up for manslaughter and has to live with killing someone because of an idiotic comment. Scenario B: You are on your way to the shops, you need to pick up some stuff to cook your wife dinner. You're waiting at a train crossing staring dead ahead thinking of the stuff you have to get. Potatoes, milk, need some cheese -- "Stop staring at me!" The next thing you know you can't see, and you're scratching your face for 30-40 minutes... Dinner is eaten late. And every dumb bitch should just leave her psycho boyfriend, right? This is, in its rawest form, the main problem with peoples understanding of domestic violence and the people who involve themselves in abusive relationships. It's never that simple. A man cannot necessarily defend themselves against an enraged woman. I could comfortably beat the living shit out of every girlfriend I've ever had, but even if one had come at me all I'd would do is run. It's a twisted kind of chivalry that men stuck in these relationships are often bound by. Legalize macing men for pretty much anything, and it's this kind of trash-bag woman who would take advantage of it. If anything, I would say that is exactly what mace should be used for by a woman.
I've found it to be generally quite good actually. Most people have been conducting themselves in a mature manner, and it's been an interesting discussion. I'm having fun.
What I'm seeing is the condoning of punishing people for speech. Not speech inciting violence, but merely rude or obnoxious speech. Mace, jail time - heaven help us when certain people have to power to decide what can and cannot be said. I can see, just from the divergent opinions here, that some of us would end up in jail - and who that would be would be totally dependent on which ones held that power. Personally, as a woman, I have no wish or need for someone to decide I need protection from mere words.
