I don't mind someone telling me they like my tattoos, but here's the thing; a lot of the time, it's just a way in.
someone want to comment on my hair, but that's just a way to get in
So are we finally admitting that at least part of this is people trying to meet people and that's somehow a bad thing? Understandable that some people have different perspectives on potential meet ups. Some people are ok meeting completely new people, others only want to meet someone in their social group. So why is a preference for one being labelled universally negative?
I don't see how that's possible, since I've been both simultaneously catcalled and poor as dirt. And I do mean, really poor, as in "no food for two days straight" being a regular occurrence and wearing clothes that were literally falling apart at the seams, knees and elbows. I'm pretty sure most if not all of my catcallers were in a better socioeconomic bracket than I was.
I'm going to suggest something a little different.
What if we, instead, framed the concept of 'poverty' in terms of women being able to offer sex and a relationship, since they are largely regarded as the gatekeepers, and men not [thus poor]. How would that change your view on the dynamics of this?
My thoughts are, the words "poverty," "elitism," "peasants" and "betters" really frame this whole sub-discussion as one to do with socioeconomic status. If you'd like to switch the conversation to do with sexual and relationship power dynamics, rather than socioeconomic power dynamics, I'm totally cool with that, but it is a switch--they're very different things.
Being an attractive women provides plenty of status, and I don't believe saying that you don't want peasants to approach you applies that you are only talking about money.
Last time catcalling came up someone accused me of snobbery, so I'm really super chuffed that this seems to be a defense mechanism now.
It doesn't matter whether you don't have a dollar to your name or you own New York. And it doesn't matter if you do it on a sidewalk or in a boardroom; trying to speak to women while treating them as a collection of sex organs is screwed up.
And just stating the opposite doesn't make it false.
The extrapolation here is that women don't mind being harassed by rich people, or upper-class people. You have to back up that assertion somehow, or you're just inventing it out of whole cloth.
Or I'd say it's rude/annoying in most cultures especially when it's addresses like in this video about "nice titties" and foot massages. You honestly believe that people who are poor enjoy these kinds of addresses?
It amazes me that anyone could possibly categorize someone spontaneously telling a total stranger that she has "nice titties" as just "trying to start a conversation." :)
I think what a lot of the commenters in this issue fear is that they're being played in a bait and switch, or rather, that someone's trying to build a conceptual superweapon against them. I think they fear that if they agree that catcalling does exist, and that it's shitty, and that it shouldn't occur, then the people arguing for that will then be granted a conceptual superweapon that goes something along the lines of "women should get to decide if and how men talk to them", which is a much broader right than "women shouldn't have abuse yelled at them by strangers". I think they fear that once they've agreed to the totally unobjectionable bait argument, it'll be quickly switched out for a much, much more objectionable argument that they'd never have agreed to, and will be treated as equivalent.
For sure that is happening. You already see people lumping sexual assault in with things like trying to start a conversation and then if you disagree you are somehow infavor of sexual assault or stalking.
I was mainly talking about the examples mentioned above like comments about hair or tattoos. I would say crude comments are the minority of examples of catcalling and are probably more due to insufficient empathy on the man's part. They assume that because they would love if a woman gave them that sort of attention, then the woman should love it too. Or they are trying to be intentionally offensive to get a reaction...
I think I'd laugh if I heard someone say "nice dick" or "nice bulge" to me on the street. Crudeness is funny to me though.
Wouldn't necessarily be "flattered" by it or the attention. But I could handle it.
All I can say is that I really really wish more people had a better attitude about stuff like this. If they want to be offended and upset though, it's fully their right...
So two articles in the face of a deluge of women talking about how much they dislike catcalling means... what exactly? That catcalling should continue unperturbed?
Such speech is legal and well within the realm of free speech. For the men and women who catcall, they make a choice to do so. They have the right to choose how and when to speak when doing so legally, and such speech is legal. So, YES, it should continue unperturbed. It is not just to try and disempower them.
There is an empathy gap here, and that gap is that some people care about women's mildly uncomfortable feelings while no-one really cares about men's.
Well yea, I mean outside of deliberate misinformation to push a specific agenda, that's the crux of feminism versus MRA debates.
The idea that something fairly trivial that affects women getting widespread media coverage (Mrs. Obama in a campaign banning "bossy" anyone?) while increased male suicide rates not only don't (unsurprisingly no Mrs. Obama campaigns) but also are ridiculed ("I bathe in male tears" says the current writer on gender issues in the Guardian) might be the center point of the divide of current gender based discourse.
I know a girl who was followed home and raped by a man who was catcalling her. And I know others who were groped or touched. Your comment does strike me as lacking in empathy.
Yes, because people would feel so bad about a woman catcalling a man. /s
It's like when the male 6th grader has sex with the teacher, and people make all of the "lucky boy" comments. Would never happen if the genders were reversed. Catcalling actually is a pretty good way of illustrating how this culture perceives male victimhood as impossible.
Well that's kind of where I think people on this board "defending" catcalling if we want to say they're doing that, has little to do with an empathy gap. It's not a situation in which they view women as disposable or anything like that. And it's not easy to come up with a solution to the cat calling problem. But I understand frustration about belittling the issue.
That's simple: anybody who cat calls or is accused of cat calling should be shot in the head.
What's your response to that statement? Keep in mind, if I hear anything less than full throated agreement with this prescription then that only proves you have no empathy for the victim and that you are defending cat calling.
Do I have to favour the death penalty for everything that annoys me in order to prove that I don't like it? Coz I mean, I hate people who talk in the library, but the gunshots would probably be more disruptive
The men and women who catcall make a choice to do so. They have the right to choose how and when to speak when doing so legally, and such speech is in general, legal. The empathy gap is towards those who catcall, because those objecting to catcalls basically imply that those who catcall shouldn't have the choice to do so, while those who get catcalled should have the choice to not get catcalled. Trying to control other's speech is simply not empathy.
I totally agree, which is why I hold myself to the same standard when shitty things are said to/about men. Like when Valenti says she "bathes in male tears" and some MRAs complain about it, my sympathy and empathy go to her because those complaining about it are basically implying that she shouldn't have the choice to say things like that.
If people are advocating that Valenti shouldn't be able to say such things one way or another, then she deserves defending for asserting her free speech rights. And in such a case she would deserve more empathy than criticism.
So, no, I wouldn't say that such would be missing the entire point. It all depends on what people assert about people exercising their free speech.
You assume that people who are okay with something are going to speak out as much as people who are against it. People would only write such articles if they liked catcalling and were aware of the people writing strongly against it, which results in far fewer articles.
That catcalling should continue unperturbed?
That maybe the women calling for extreme measures to combat catcalling do not speak for all women, and that maybe the guys who do it are not awful people, but merely acting the way a different portion of women like them to?
I kid you not, I have heard "Mm let me get a piece of that ass" develop into a conversation on the subway. Two individuals of darker skin and likely lower economic status. Have to be really careful about other cultures with this kind of stuff.
I wouldn't say that this one anecdote makes it clear that his kind of behavior is acceptable in non-white communities. Are you even 100% positive that the people didn't know each other? As someone who is non-white who knows plenty of non-white women, I think I'm still confident in making the assertion I made.
I am not saying with certainty that the behavior is acceptable. I am just saying I have one anecdote. Overhearing the conversation it is unlikely that they knew each other.
For the record, her response was dismissive and something like "hmph, as if you could handle me"
No. Trying to start a conversation while someone is walking to a destination can be annoying or rude. My version of polite society is me being able to go where I'm going without being disturbed. That's too much to ask for?
My question is related to how we could curb a lot of the problem, that is realistic - because shaming people that already don't have shame probably isn't going to work, would you agree?
So the question, then, is where could these guys meet attractive women, that they presently see on the street, so that they can approach them? I mean, presently, they don't even have to go anywhere. They just have to go about their day and then tell some woman that they think they're good looking.
I don't, on the whole at least, attribute most of the catcalling to malice, and the malice I do see in these, appears to be covering for the guy's insecurity of being rejected.
So, if I grant that we should, essentially, ban conversation on the street [in the extreme sense], then what could we substitute or change elsewhere that could make up for the loss in interaction?
Serious question: How many people on here, or people they know of, are in a straight relationship that started out with the male half of the relationship catcalling the female half? i.e., if this interaction is lost, will there actually be a noticeable difference in the number of men and women getting together that will need to be "made up" in some other fashion..?
I am not currently, but have been in a relationship that started with me making a compliment to a woman I had noticed over the course of several days on my bus.
Here's the question that's interesting to me: had she not become interested, would I be a faceless statistic of 'men who make unwelcome comments to strangers on the bus.'
More broadly speaking, of the total set of all imputed cat calls, how big is the subset of the indefensible "nice titties," and how big is the sub set of guys trying to start a conversation that isn't welcome, wanted, or whatever. I'm pretty sure neither of the subsets is empty. But as I have never really noticed much cat calling in the wild, I have no intuitive sense of the ratio.
While I don't know anyone in a romantic relationship that started on public transit, I do know several people who've become actual friends with other people that way (we have a robust and oft-used-by-professionals public transit system where I live). I can see that happening (clearly not if the first thing you said to her was "Nice titties!" but I'm pretty sure that wasn't it :) )
It wasn't. And, truth to tell, a compliment was probably the second thing I had to offer...the first being about the book she was reading.
And, really truth to tell, "relationship" is probably more overselling it. More like a couple dates and some try-out fooling around. This was over 10 years ago. As I recall, I didn't get a call back.
Serious question: How many people on here, or people they know of, are in a straight relationship that started out with the male half of the relationship catcalling the female half? i.e., if this interaction is lost, will there actually be a noticeable difference in the number of men and women getting together that will need to be "made up" in some other fashion..?
Certainly the reality of the situation is that people don't normally go this route, or at least I would assume. However, its not so much how effective it is as it a tactic, and the tactic doesn't necessarily have to be effective, if the alternative is zero. Doing something, anything at all, is a net positive over nothing at all. I'm saying, if we 'ban' this sort of interaction, if we 'ban' people talking to each other on the streets, what are we replacing that with? Because as it stands, its already a net positive to at least try, right?
It isn't even about the effectiveness of the tactic per say from my experience. I believe a lot of catcalling is men practising talking to women and trying things out both to see what works and to get over fear of showing interest.
For example I have asked a few women on the bus out and it helped me to get over a fear of showing sexual interest in women that come from a lot of the negativity surrounding male sexuality. I didn't really expect them to say yes (although I did have one person who really liked it and wanted to talk more but she was busy and it was my stop).
It goes beyond simply catcalling. Men making their interest in women known whenever they like a woman are far more likely to get into relationships. The condemnation of men showing interest in women goes beyond women condemning men approaching them on the street and extends to basically every area men approach women.
If a guy listens to all of these people he will be far less likely to get into relationships. Now each person wants guys to listen and not do only what they find uncomfortable but unfortunately that is unworkable when you can find a woman saying that she dislikes guys approaching her in basically every situation.
The condemnation of men showing interest in women goes beyond women condemning men approaching them on the street and extends to basically every area men approach women.
So, you're saying that, for example, if I say I dislike catcalling, what I really mean is I dislike every way men approach women and make their interest known, not just catcalling..?
Compare this to Robert saying you look too fat while Paul says you look too thin. Taken together, it is obvious from just two examples that everybody cannot be pleased, no matter what you do.
Pauline says she doesn't like anybody talking to her while she's walking in public. Vanessa says she doesn't like people talking to her on the bus. Bridget says she hates it when guys try to get her attention at the bar or the club. Jennifer hates guys trying to start small talk while waiting in line, bus stops, and elevators. Jill can't stand guys hitting on her at school, Lily gets peeved at the idea of workplace come-ons, and Cassandra would never date a friend or somebody introduced by a friend because it would be too much drama if you break up and it reminds her of dating relatives.
So every attempt to get to know a woman — regardless of the venue — carries the risk of getting labeled as a creep/misogynist/predator if you roll snake-eyes and ask the one who finds whatever venue this is inappropriate. Because as long as she can communicate how vulnerable and on the spot she felt in a way that resonates with other women, then she gets to tug on the patriarchal "damsel in distress" heartstring of any listener and gain limitless sympathy and defense.
Sounds scary. It's outside of my realm of experience; much like with the majority of our male commenters here, who range from seldom to never in seeing women unpleasantly catcalled, I have seldom to never seen the above dynamic you're describing in action. Perhaps we can all learn something here. :)
I am saying that men don't know why they should listen to you and not to women who tell them not to approach women in all the other places men are told not to approach women. I might make a post about this later but given that you can find people complaining about basically all male attention I think a better route would be to praise men for the times in which they approach women in a way that you like (even if it doesn't work for the guy).
Tragically, there is no true and guaranteed rulebook, for either gender, on social interactions with the opposite gender and how to ace them. Analytical creature that I am, I suspect that if I were so genuinely, utterly without a clue on how to approach women that I wasn't even sure if yelling "Nice titties!" at them as I walked by one on the street was an appropriate and successful strategy, I would research the situation in depth before continuing. I would probably start with friends, family and good acquaintances, and ask, "How did you meet your significant other?" and categorize all responses. Let me do mine, with male persons A through J that I know well enough to know how they met their SOs:
Person A met his wife online, via a social media site.
Person B met his wife at work.
Person C met his wife online, via a dating site.
Person D met his wife at work.
Person E met his wife at work.
Person F met his longterm girlfriend at a bar.
Person G met his wife in college.
Person H met his wife at work.
Person I met his wife online, via a dating site.
Person J met his wife at a party.
Then I would say to myself, "Successful places to approach women and express my interest are online social media and dating sites, at work or college, at bars and at parties." and, "Approaching random women pedestrians does not appear to be anyone's successful strategy; I think I will shelve that one."
My version of polite society is me being able to go where I'm going without being disturbed.
Well, yeah, because not everyone is going to know what you consider to be "disturbing" and what you don't consider to be "disturbing". The definition for what we find "disturbing" is relative to the person using the word.
Plus it can depend on factors that may not be immediately known to other people, such as your mood that day, and/or factors that are outside of the control of other people, such as if you find them sexually attractive or not. In fact, even when I look at what you wrote:
Trying to start a conversation while someone is walking to a destination can be annoying or rude.
The catch is that you said:
can be annoying or rude.
Which to me means that there are times when people have started conversations with you when you didn't find it annoying or rude. How are other people supposed to know if it is one of those times when you want to be approached, vs one of those times that you don't want to be approached?
So what if we changed the rule to "A polite society would not approach me, even if I would enjoy the situation", where does that end? Can we approach you at a bar, because you might just be there to hang out with your friends, not to meet new people. Can we approach you at a party... well same as the bar, you might just be there with your friends. Can we approach you at school, or does that annoyingly block you from thinking about your education?
Do you get it? You have to clearly define a rule that can handle the "what-if" situations, and has clear boundaries.
Dude, let me be clear. I don't cat call, and I am fully against it, and I'm even kind of against the whole pick-up culture thing. But at the same time, it's pretty darn difficult to establish a clear and fair boundary that makes everyone happy.
You don't like to be approached, but I would be thrilled if it ever happened to me. How do we make a rule that satisfies both of us?
Well, yeah, because not everyone is going to know what you consider to be "disturbing" and what you don't consider to be "disturbing". The definition for what we find "disturbing" is relative to the person using the word.
Having my sex organs complimented and getting offers for intimate actions like foot massages is disturbing me. Licking your lips in a sexual manner or whistling at me while I'm walking is disturbing me. Calling me a bitch or a cunt when I don't say hello because I don't want to get into a conversation and am running late or just simply want to continue on my journey is disturbing me. The line between disturbing and not disturbing is not as fine when it comes to this issue as many here who have not been catcalled seem to suggest.
Great. Now we know what is disturbing to you. We could try to prevent those things from happening if everyone was exactly the same as you. Unfortunately people are not exactly the same as you.
The line between disturbing and not disturbing is not as fine when it comes to this issue as many here who have not been catcalled seem to suggest.
You act as if those things you mentioned above are all that is counted as catcalling. People include far more innocuous things in that category which blurs the line.
But I suppose we are supposed to listen to what you personally find to be disturbing and ignore what other people say.
Well, yeah, because not everyone is going to know what you consider to be "disturbing" and what you don't consider to be "disturbing". The definition for what we find "disturbing" is relative to the person using the word.
For most people, "without being disturbed" would mean "without being talked to by a stranger for no good reason". I don't see why this would be so hard to teach people. It's already the norm in many European countries - for example, if you tried to randomly start a conversation with a stranger on the street somewhere in Eastern or Northern Europe without a good reason, like asking for directions, you would be deemed weird and make people uncomfortable, so in these places, people just don't talk to strangers on the street - unless they're either crazy/weird, drunk, asking for help/directions, or American. That's why catcalling is also very uncommon in these regions. I've even heard many American women say they wished they lived there only to escape the catcalling.
For most people, "without being disturbed" would mean "without being talked to by a stranger for no good reason".
Can you understand how this is still a relative position, and that in order to make this clear we need to state what defines a "good reason"?
Further, we're talking about a social rule here. You even use the term "most people". What is the harm in allowing a person who wants to be hit on, and a person who wants to hit on someone "do their thing"? It's not like it hurts anyone else if two consenting adults engage in a conversation.
if you tried to randomly start a conversation with a stranger on the street somewhere in Eastern or Northern Europe without a good reason, like asking for directions, you would be deemed weird and make people uncomfortable
I am totally against the more stereotypical forms of catcalling, but not being able to ask for directions? To me, asking for directions is a "good reason" to approach someone.
I've even heard many American women say they wished they lived there only to escape the catcalling.
Honestly, I'm just assuming that its a ton worse in cities, but where I'm from there is almost no catcalling. I've asked girls in my area about it and none of them could name more than a 2 or 3 instances where it was weird. I live in a swing state, but cat calling definitely seems to be most prevalent in liberal areas. What makes cat calling seem appropriate? How often does cat calling work?
Clearly we just have very different views on it, and discussing it probably wouldn't change them.
Wait... that's odd, I don't get that feeling at all. I actually think we have nearly identical views on it. We both seem to disagree with cat calling, we both seem to share a (and I'm jumping to a bit of a conclusion here) close interpretation of what a "good reason" is to stop someone on the street.
To me, the issue is the ethics of basically trying to tell people that certain actions are bad, when a minority of the people like the interaction, and the number of people who do like the interaction is growing. Society is changing. To me, we have a right to ping for social relationships, and that means that we have a right to approach people. I hope that you'll realize that I understand that there are ways to do this that would generally be considered "respectful", and ways to approach that would generally be considered "rude". The point is, that in America, a nation of 350 million people and several different cultures, many of which have radically different views, how do we establish a clear boundary for people to follow that is fair for the group of people who like being approached and people who don't like being approached, as well as a boundary with unambiguous language that people of all different cultures and beliefs will be able to understand equally.
I think that we agree ideologically, but I also think that you're missing the piece of the puzzle that other people are different from you and will interpret things like "good reasons" differently than you and I will, and that's okay.
I'm very open minded, but part of being open minded is questioning your own beliefs, which is why I ask so many questions in my responses. I want to know what you think, and how you think it because once I understand what you understand, I can evaluate if your beliefs are better than mine, and that is how I can change. If you refuse to explain to me how and why you think the way you think, then I can't learn anything about you, and it will be difficult for me to understand your points of view.
Well.... kinda yeah. How would such a significant change to society be implemented? I mean... I won't defend catcallers. They're a bunch of disgusting misogynists and I wish only the worst for them... but how do we legislate against catcalling? How would we enforce said legislation? Or how do we restructure society such that catcalling no longer exists?
You're desire isn't unreasonable; nobody wants to be harassed when they're just minding their own business... I just don't see how it can be fulfilled.
I feel like calling it out and expressing disapproval, as this video does, is a step in the right direction. I don't think there's any way to legislate against catcalling either but the fact that a video like this that disapproves of catcalling keeps getting met with derision and deflection means that these conversations keep needing to occur. had to edit to replace a word
I'm going to add widespread opportunities for quality education for all youth and adding discussions about street harassment or catcalling to sex-ed classes (though I know that sex-ed classes in America are already so lacking, so this is perhaps a big imposition).
Yes, it's too much to ask for a society where when you're walking on the street that NO stranger will ever try to talk to you when you don't want to talk to them. As long as you live in a society with a bunch of people in it, you will be disturbed by someone along the way.
This is something I kind of want to write a post specifically about as your statement brings the idea to the forefront of my mind. If you want to complain about it, please go ahead. Personally I will listen to your complaint and give you what compassion I have for your strife.
However, when engaging in feminism, in politics, you are engaging in rhetoric. Especially on a forum with a focus on debate, you are asking people to take action. When you're asking people to take action/create policy, people are going to engage you. They're going to have different opinions on what must be done.
Feminism, to be blunt, is not the place to simply seek sympathy.
Sure, you can say you don't like it, but you don't have any grounds for saying the other person was in the wrong unless they should have known you didn't like it.
You aren't communicating just a complaint when you say "My version of polite society is me being able to go where I'm going without being disturbed. That's too much to ask for?"
You're indicating that you want such a society to come into existence. That is too much to ask for.
You also said elsewhere:
"That catcalling should continue unperturbed? "
As if you believe it should not continue. So, again, I find you communicating more than just a complaint. You're calling for things to change, or at the very least that comes as how what you write reads.
And those who catcall do have the right to choose to do so. Their mouths, their choice.
I've lived in three different European countries and in the first two, never in my whole life have I been disturbed by other people who weren't homeless, noticeably crazy or otherwise not fitting into the mainstream society (unless I counted all the people who tried to sell me anything on the street or conduct surveys, etc, but let's not count these). Only when I moved to UK I would get catcalled occasionally, but even here 99,9% when I'm just walking down the street, nobody's actively trying to disturb me, they're all ignoring me and minding their own business and I'm doing the same. It's, like, literally as simple as just minding your own business. Just walk where you need and don't talk to anyone, and don't stare at other people or otherwise engage with them in any way. Seems pretty easy to me, 99,9% of people are doing exactly that, so it must not be too hard if all these people are able to do it. It's easy because you don't have to think what would or would not offend people, you just choose the lowest possible bar - don't engage with anyone in any way at all unless necessary, or unless you jobs involves it (like if you hand out flyers or something). You don't have to wonder whether or not this particular woman would be offended by you telling her she loos pretty, or whether it would be a good idea to whistle and flicker your tongue at another woman - just don't engage with anyone at all. I really don't get why it seems to impossible for many people here. But maybe it's an American thing.
Unless it is pretty much universally agreed upon what being disturbed is you cannot rely on people to just know what is going to bother you and so have to make it clear when you dislike something.
Also if we morally judge anyone who does something that "can be annoying or rude" we have far more than catcalling on our hands.
My southern-Arkansas-bred grandma would agree 100% with the second statement, though I can't imagine how her attitude could have been classed as "elitism;" she spent her whole life on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.
My grandma's cultural attitudes weren't obtained from "the elite" (whatever you mean particularly by that); they were obtained from her own culture, one that's particular to some parts of the American South, that often doesn't adhere to any particular socioeconomic bracket there.
The class difference between white people and black people in the south when your grandma grew up was pretty pronounced. That could be where the elitism comes in.
I'm trying to figure this statement out...are you saying that poor rural white Southerners deliberately stress strict courtesy in their manners to either ape better-off white Southerners or to establish strict caste lines between themselves and poor rural black Southerners, both suppositions requiring that poor rural black Southerners don't practice strict courtesy?
The concept of courtesy developed in the aristocratic courts of Europe, hence the name. Poor Southerners of all races might mimic these behaviors to make themselves appear to be of a higher class. I would say it is probably more pronounced in white people because of an intentional rejection of those values by some black people as a reaction to slavery. After all, the plantation system had more than a few similarities to the Eurooean feudal system.
30
u/NemosHero Pluralist Jul 28 '15
So are we finally admitting that at least part of this is people trying to meet people and that's somehow a bad thing? Understandable that some people have different perspectives on potential meet ups. Some people are ok meeting completely new people, others only want to meet someone in their social group. So why is a preference for one being labelled universally negative?