Street /Any sexual Harrassment.

Lou.m

Usually I don't pay much attention to upworthy. But I thought was well done.

Lou.m

Uh you might not want to read the comments on the video on you tube.

lazybones32

"I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it" (1:50)

Dolbert

lazybones32 wrote: »

"I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it" (1:50)

Your point being?

I really wish I hadn't read those comments.

lazybones32

Dolbert wrote: »

Your point being?

I dress to provoke people but I shouldn't have to deal with the people I've provoked.

Children show more common sense and maturity.

Morag

Or people could just learn to mind their own business and not harrash people over what they wear.

Dolbert

lazybones32 wrote: »

I dress to provoke people but I shouldn't have to deal with the people I've provoked.

Children show more common sense and maturity.

She's asking for it. Gotcha

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

lazybones32 wrote: »

I dress to provoke people but I shouldn't have to deal with the people I've provoked.

Children show more common sense and maturity.

The "it" she was referring to was being cat-called, groped and degraded by strangers because of the way she dresses.

It's perfectly possible to see a good-looking girl dressed revealingly and think to yourself "damn, she looks good" without thinking you have any kind of right to verbally or physically harass her. Source: I do that every day.

Most adults have the common sense and maturity to realise they can have an unexpressed thought about how someone looks.

lazybones32

Dolbert wrote: »

She's asking for it. Gotcha

Judge, Jury and Executioner... no point continuing with you.

Taliyah Many Deck wrote: »

The "it" she was referring to was being cat-called, groped and degraded by strangers because of the way she dresses.

It's perfectly possible to see a good-looking girl dressed revealingly and think to yourself "damn, she looks good" without thinking you have any kind of right to verbally or physically harass her. Source: I do that every day.

Most adults have the common sense and maturity to realise they can have an unexpressed thought about how someone looks.

At best it could be called ambiguous; what she meant by "it". I genuinely think she would have spent a few extra seconds to clarify what she meant, if that was what she meant.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not justifying cat-calling or the worse expressions that get thrown at some women but I think the woman must exercise her own good judgement and realise that wearing provocative clothing will inevitably provoke a response - from men and women. (The calls and 'propositions' that are aimed at women dressed 'normally' are an unfortunate and unavoidable aspect of Life...men aren't immune from a different type of physical encounter)

If I were to go into a Loyalist Pub in East Belfast wearing a Celtic soccer shirt, am I free from responsibility if/when I get harassed?

I've no problem with women going out wearing less than I wear to bed, but they are well-aware of the environment they are going into and they've deliberated on their attire.
Again, the person going about their daily business who gets unwanted attention is innocent and undeserving but how do you go about changing human nature?

Accusations of strawman and whataboutery in 3, 2....

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

lazybones32 wrote: »

At best it could be called ambiguous; what she meant by "it". I genuinely think she would have spent a few extra seconds to clarify what she meant, if that was what she meant.

Given the topic and title of the video I wouldn't have thought she did have to clarify, it's pretty obvious.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not justifying cat-calling or the worse expressions that get thrown at some women but I think the woman must exercise her own good judgement and realise that wearing provocative clothing will inevitably provoke a response - from men and women. (The calls and 'propositions' that are aimed at women dressed 'normally' are an unfortunate and unavoidable aspect of Life...men aren't immune from a different type of physical encounter)

You're explaining those behaviours at least in part by attributing them to the woman. It is not inevitable that wearing provocative clothing will provoke a response, it depends on the cat caller feeling secure enough to do it and feeling entitled to do it. It depends a lot on very specific conditions - a woman on her own is more likely to get cat called than a woman with a big burly man with her for example; and broader cultural conditions - the street harassment thing is far worse in the states than in Ireland and the UK. People are well able to control themselves when they see a woman in a short dress, they choose not to. Responding to people criticising that choice by telling them that they're immature and lacking in common sense is a non-argument.

If I were to go into a Loyalist Pub in East Belfast wearing a Celtic soccer shirt, am I free from responsibility if/when I get harassed?

Bullsh*t analogy. She's not specifically seeking out places where her dress is going to draw attention, she's going about her everyday life. If you were walking down O Connell street wearing a Celtic shirt and would have to accept that you'd get trouble for it, that'd be the same thing.

lazybones32

Taliyah Many Deck wrote: »

You're explaining those behaviours at least in part by attributing them to the woman. It is not inevitable that wearing provocative clothing will provoke a response, it depends on the cat caller feeling secure enough to do it and feeling entitled to do it. It depends a lot on very specific conditions - a woman on her own is more likely to get cat called than a woman with a big burly man with her for example; and broader cultural conditions - the street harassment thing is far worse in the states than in Ireland and the UK. People are well able to control themselves when they see a woman in a short dress, they choose not to. Responding to people criticising that choice by telling them that they're immature and lacking in common sense is a non-argument.

I'm attributing certain responsibilities to the woman: if you decide to dress provocatively [to elicit a response; a strong reaction] then it is very possible you will receive that. Isn't that the whole purpose of dressing provocatively? ... to get a response, to make an impression. Why then bemoan when a response arrives?

Feeling entitled? I've heard this leveled at men many times but this sense of entitlement still eludes me in every sense...from understanding it to practicing it. Why don't women feel entitled to react as they see fit to the man speaking his mind?

Why don't most men cat-call a woman with a big man beside her? Consequences. He knows that what he does will have repercussions. (Should the big man allow the caller to express his self as he sees fit and respect his decision?)

I don't criticise people who innocently suffer cat-calls but I do criticise those who deliberately wear provocative clothing and then complain that they got a response.

It's an apt analogy. Was this her first time walking in the City? No, she knew her surroundings, knew the people she would likely encounter and still chose to dress provocatively. She has the right to wear whatever she wants but she has to acknowledge that people may react in varying degrees based on what she's wearing. That's not absolving the offender in any sense but it is her taking responsibility in the areas she can.

(Walking down O'Connell St. with a Rangers jersey - day or night - will get a response...)

Wibbs

Taliyah Many Deck wrote: »

Most adults have the common sense and maturity to realise they can have an unexpressed thought about how someone looks.

I agree 100% EB and it would be great if most people were adults, however the plain fact is the real world(tm) doesn't consist of "most adults". Dicks are an albeit small subsection of people, but they exist. Common sense would suggest tailoring behaviour to the environment you find yourself in(that goes for anyone too).

More, if you're running on the principle of "I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it", then don't be bloody well provocative. Provocative = "If you describe something as provocative, you mean that it is intended to make people react angrily or argue against it"(Online Collins dictionary. Underlined emphasis mine). According to her wording her intention is to provoke, to seek attention for how she presents herself publicly. She can hardly be surprised or upset when this works surely? This is pretty basic logic we're talking about here. If you slap a dog around the face, do you then complain if it bites you? Do you then blame the dog? Hardly.

Either that or she's more than a little adrift on what the word provocative actually means, or she's seeking attention/validation from specific audiences and doesn't like any spillover to audiences she's not targeting. Why else be provocative unless you are seeking some sort of audience? It's in the nature of the beast.

Whatever about street harassment of women, which defo can be an issue, provoking a response and then getting freaked out because that provocation worked is on another level entirely.

beks101

While I 100% agree that this kind of behaviour is disgusting, unacceptable and exhibits an underlying sexism and objectification of women by the men in question - sometimes you have to acknowledge a few cold, hard facts about the world we live in and realize that walking through a building site or down a busy street in a large, crowded city wearing less than half nothing just because that should be your god-given right is not going to make life easy on yourself. Regardless of whatever right to equality you believe in and whatever point you're trying to make, the reality is it's going to make you a target.

I hate the fact that I have to deeply consider what I'm going to wear as I walk home from work in the sunshine tomorrow to account for the eejits I may meet along the way who haven't learned how to hold their tongue or keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to the female strangers they pass on the street every day. I hate the fact that I will be forfeiting the right to fade into oblivion and just get on with my day unperturbed if I choose to wear X, Y or Z (that little summer dress, those heels I spent half a month's wages on, those small shorts that I've worked my ass off to fit into).

And I hate the feeling that my body is not my own and is some kind of public property if I choose to dress it or flaunt it in a certain way - or indeed the feeling that I am defined by my body alone to these people who I've never met, and have no interest in meeting, and who believe they have some kind of right to reduce me to some kind of doll for their viewing pleasure, despite the fact that I could probably out-smart every single one of them. That's NOT ok.

But I'm 29 years old and I've had about half my life across several different continents to get used to the fact that this is the world we live in, and it will take more than this one person defiantly deciding "NO, I'll wear what I want when I want" to make any kind of changes.

YES these are our rights as women and we shouldn't completely turn our heads to them, but is that crusade worth your own personal safety and emotional security and the daily headache of drawing heads and comments and attention from these cave men, who are everywhere and represented in all walks of life, and haven't learned about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour around a woman?

Lyaiera

Just because you dress provocatively doesn't mean you set out to provoke people. I dress provocatively every day and I'd like nothing better than for people's eyes to pass over me without a second thought. Painting my nails is a provocation to society, or so society seems to think. I'm trans and anything I do to some way show that is me being provocatively dressed.

Wibbs

Lyaiera wrote: »

Just because you dress provocatively doesn't mean you set out to provoke people.

Eh it kinda does, unless there's another definition of provocative I'm unaware of.

Princess Peach

Lyaiera wrote: »

Just because you dress provocatively doesn't mean you set out to provoke people.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh it kinda does, unless there's another definition of provocative I'm unaware of.

Depends really on who is was that decided the outfit was provocative, the wearer or the person who has a reaction.

If Lyaiera wears nail polish because its her favourite colour, but it provokes someone, hardly her fault?

If a girl wears a short sun dress because it's a hot day and someone cat calls her because they think its too revealing, that's them putting on the label of provocative.

It's all opinion, one person's provocative is another person's conservative!

Lyaiera

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh it kinda does, unless there's another definition of provocative I'm unaware of.

So you didn't read the rest of my post, which made the whole point. Me even wearing something as simple as nail polish is provocative, even though I don't set out to provoke anyone, just be myself. That's how you can do something provocative without intending to provoke.

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

Provocative = "If you describe something as provocative, you mean that it is intended to make people react angrily or argue against it"(Online Collins dictionary. Underlined emphasis mine). According to her wording her intention is to provoke, to seek attention for how she presents herself publicly. She can hardly be surprised or upset when this works surely? This is pretty basic logic we're talking about here. If you slap a dog around the face, do you then complain if it bites you? Do you then blame the dog? Hardly

Are you really justifying this by bringing up a dictionary definition of a word she used, and equating a woman dressing in a way that she feels good and looks good to 'slapping a dog around the face'?

It's more akin to being bitten by a dog who thought you looked edible.

Wibbs

Star Lord wrote: »

Are you really justifying this by bringing up a dictionary definition of a word she used, and equating a woman dressing in a way that she feels good and looks good to 'slapping a dog around the face'?

I'm justifying nothing. I'm simply asking a question. She used the word provocative, she decided to be provocative. It's an active decision and is looking for a response. To quote PP

Princess Peach wrote: »

Depends really on who is was that decided the outfit was provocative, the wearer or the person who has a reaction.

Good point. I'm taking it from the perspective of your first example. Someone deciding something is provocative/intending to provoke a reaction can hardly cry foul when others are provoked. It's quite different to PP's second example where some idiot decides to be provoked where no provocation or the intent to provoke exists.

I acknowledged the street harassment of women is a very real issue. They are seen as public property by too many men far too often. I simply questioned the faulty logic of someone who says "I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it". All actions have consequences, but that particular individual seems to be confused about this dynamic, instead passes on any consequences of their conscious actions to others. Or as I said she doesn't understand what the word provocative actually means.

Sacksian

Wibbs wrote: »

I simply questioned the faulty logic of someone who says "I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it". All actions have consequences, but that particular individual seems to be confused about this dynamic, instead passes on any consequences of their conscious actions to others. Or as I said she doesn't understand what the word provocative actually means.

Some of my opinions - and yours, no doubt - could be considered provocative in certain contexts, depending on the audience (the audience generally determines what is provocative and what is not).

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with the idea that I should not express ideas or behaviours because they might provoke a reaction from people I fundamentally disagree with. Seems like a recipe for perpetuating the structures that construct your behaviour or attitudes as provocative.

Surely, the argument here is about what represents reasonable "consequences of ... conscious actions" and most would agree that sexual harrassment isn't one of them.

KERSPLAT!

I think what Wibbs is saying is that this lady, by her own admission, is being purposely provocative meaning she wants to provoke a reaction... But in the same breath is annoyed at getting said reaction

Though, I may be wrong

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

She used the word provocative, she decided to be provocative.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I think what Wibbs is saying is that this lady, by her own admission, is being purposely provocative meaning she wants to provoke a reaction... But in the same breath is annoyed at getting said reaction

That's taking one definition. The definition on dictionary.com is:

provocative

adjective
tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.

noun
something provocative.

There is nothing there about intent, and intent is assumed by the previous definition, and to assume someone's intent is a dangerous route to go down with the subject matter in hand.

Did you watch the video in the first post? The girls were wearing nothing that I'd consider provocative at all, unless you've been cooped up for the last 50 years and are scandalised by the sight of a woman in a skirt, and yet they were still subject to the calls from the guys they passed. Are they inviting such comment or, as described in the videos, actual assault, by virtue of being attractive women who happen to be wearing clothes that flatter them? No. Are the guys in question out of order? Yes, absolutely.

discus

lazybones32 wrote: »

"I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it" (1:50)

What the lady in question fails to realise is that there are a huge amount of girls out there who will dress similarly to her, looking to get that sort of attention and in a lot of cases will respond positively to the guys wolf-whistling. Maybe, instead of preaching to the choir, these ladies should be having words with the council estate dweller who reside in the lower class parts of Britain, America and Ireland. They are the last bastion, the last responders to this kind of behaviour, who don't get exposure to same stimulating intellectual discourse that the middle classes get.

Wibbs

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I think what Wibbs is saying is that this lady, by her own admission, is being purposely provocative meaning she wants to provoke a reaction... But in the same breath is annoyed at getting said reaction

Though, I may be wrong

Yep. Pretty much.

Star Lord wrote: »

There is nothing there about intent, and intent is assumed by the previous definition, and to assume someone's intent is a dangerous route to go down with the subject matter in hand.

Why?

In any event she said "I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it". She knows. It is a conscious decision on her part.

Are the guys in question out of order? Yes, absolutely.

I agree. Never said nor do I think otherwise. Actually I think catcallers and the like are advertising their plain idiocy for all to see. I mean what the hell do they expect to get from such behaviour? Morons, usually backed up by other morons.

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

Why?

In any event she said "I know the way I dress is provocative but I shouldn't have to deal with it". She knows. It is a conscious decision on her part.

Why? Because assuming that they dress that way to provoke response is the same ballpark as saying "Well, she was asking to get raped when she went out wearing that." The women in the video have been subject to sexual assault along with the cat calling, whistles, etc.

Yes, they're well aware of how they dress, because they put the clothes on. How dowdily are you suggesting that they should dress, when their t-shirt and skirt combo is deemed provocative, and soliciting these responses from men? Again, you seem to be inferring intent to provoke from what she said, which I find deeply disturbing.

kylith

Star Lord wrote: »

Did you watch the video in the first post? The girls were wearing nothing that I'd consider provocative at all, unless you've been cooped up for the last 50 years and are scandalised by the sight of a woman in a skirt, and yet they were still subject to the calls from the guys they passed. Are they inviting such comment or, as described in the videos, actual assault, by virtue of being attractive women who happen to be wearing clothes that flatter them? No. Are the guys in question out of order? Yes, absolutely.

I can't watch the whole thing (or have any sound), but I have to say that I'm amazed that the woman who wore a camera could be described as dressing provocatively - she's wearing shorts and a t-shirt, ffs.

It seems that some men feel that unless you're covered from collarbone to ankle you're inviting comment.

meeeeh

I think there are two different problems. One is idiots behaving like idiots. But saying idiots is just not enough, their behavior is wrong and should be condemned and we should try to eradicate it.

Another thing is practicality of situation. Personally I'm not overly bothered by couple of wolf whistles so my desire to dress nice would trump idiot comments any time. However I do not want to provoke sexual violence or any kind of towards myself so there are certain areas or places I wouldn't want to frequent. Similarly I value my freedom more than the right to wear whatever so I would wear burka in Iran. You asses the situation and decide what to do. You are not at blame for someone robbing your house just because you forgot to lock the door. But not being at blame won't give you your things back. But neither it makes their actions excusable or justifiable in any way.

Wibbs

Star Lord wrote: »

Why? Because assuming that they dress that way to provoke response is the same ballpark as saying "Well, she was asking to get raped when she went out wearing that."

Here we go. The Rape word. Well that escalated quickly. And no it's not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport. The majority of rapes are perpetrated by men the victim knows and usually knows for quite a while and no doubt has seen them dress in all sorts of different ways. Old women get raped, children get raped. Small, tall, thin, whatever, tt's a crime that's no respecter of how a woman looks. Rape has nada to do with how a woman dresses and it's got nada to do with the subject at hand about how being knowningly provocative will garner some sort of response and being in denial of that seems a tad daft to me.

Again, you seem to be inferring intent to provoke from what she said, which I find deeply disturbing.

No inference required on my part. In that particular example she straight up states she knows she's being provocative. I really dunno how more clear she could have been TBH. She's also an outlier among the women involved. As Princess Peach wrote above it depends really on who is was that decided the outfit was provocative, the wearer or the person who has a reaction. In that particular example she's in the former camp. Should she be harassed because of it? Of course not, but should she then claim to be shocked if she is in a world where a few morons walk free?

meeeeh wrote:

I think there are two different problems. One is idiots behaving like idiots. But saying idiots is just not enough, their behavior is wrong and should be condemned and we should try to eradicate it.

Another thing is practicality of situation. Personally I'm not overly bothered by couple of wolf whistles so my desire to dress nice would trump idiot comments any time. However I do not want to provoke sexual violence or any kind of towards myself so there are certain areas or places I wouldn't want to frequent. Similarly I value my freedom more than the right to wear whatever so I would wear burka in Iran. You asses the situation and decide what to do. You are not at blame for someone robbing your house just because you forgot to lock the door. But not being at blame won't give you your things back. But neither it makes their actions excusable or justifiable in any way.

+1 we live in the real world and there are a long list of things that need changing within that, but it's common sense to keep in mind that until changes happen the real world exists and morons exist within it. Sadly I think like the poor, morons of all types will always be with us to some degree.

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

Here we go. The Rape word. Well that escalated quickly. And no it's not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

It is when these women have been sexually assaulted you're essentially stating that it's what they should expect because of how they're dressed.

Wibbs wrote: »

No inference required on my part. In that particular example she straight up states she knows she's being provocative. I really dunno how more clear she could have been TBH. She's also an outlier among the women involved. As Princess Peach wrote above it depends really on who is was that decided the outfit was provocative, the wearer or the person who has a reaction. In that particular example she's in the former camp. Should she be harassed because of it? Of course not, but should she then claim to be shocked if she is in a world where a few morons walk free?

Again, watch the video so you can see just how 'provocative' their clothing is.
Skirts. Shorts. T-shirts. Blouses. It's not provocative in that it's in-your-face-looking-to-provoke. It's provocative in that it's eliciting a reaction anyway.