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.

chinacup

Ok I don't think you have to be dressed provocatively to get this kind of attention? Maybe you get more of it when you are but you could just carry the sin of being attractive or young and I don't thing the dialogue should always come back to blaming the woman. It pi$$e$ me right off. No matter what way you dress it (excuse the pun), its the guys who display this behavior who are at fault not the women. Why do we keep excusing it? If I want to know whether I look good or not I can look in a mirror, wolf whistling creeps me out and there's something very primal and backwards about it. I'm a fairly attractive girl and get it all the time, out of windows, approached on the street, always getting stupid comments from the perspective that you're a piece of meat to play with. I never wear low cut tops anymore even on a night out and still get it. Makes me want to slap them tbh.

Wibbs

Star Lord wrote: »

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.

Again taken up completely and utterly wrong there Ted and now I'm apparently a hairsbreadth away from being a rape apologist and a victim blamer to boot? Nice one.

I was referring to one of the women in particular who knows she's being provocative and is surprised when a reaction is provoked.

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.

I was referring to one of the women in particular who knows she's being provocative and is surprised when a reaction is provoked.

Read again where I wrote "She's also an outlier among the women involved".

I also wrote "Street harassment of women is a very real issue. They are seen as public property by too many men far too often." Yet apparently I'm victim blaming. Any clearer?

Likely not, it seems you've set out your stall and that's that and no debate is possible. Far too much reading what you want to read as opposed to what's actually written for me, so I'm out.

Lyaiera

Well, in fairness Wibbs, you did the exact thing your accusing others of doing to me.

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

Again taken up completely and utterly wrong there Ted and now I'm apparently a hairsbreadth away from being a rape apologist and a victim blamer to boot? Nice one.

Calm down there Dougal. As you're well aware, people can only go on what you write, and what you've written does come across as blaming the girl you've quoted in this instance. I've said that it's similar in the analogies that I've made, and I stand by that. It's a sliding scale, and there's a long way between what you said and justifying rape, but sexual assault, which is what's described in that video, isn't that far off it, and isn't the fault of the ladies in question simply because they're dressed in a manner that's referred to as provocative. Again, I reiterate that if you look at how they're dressed, it's hardly provocative, it's quite tame actually, but provocative can also mean that it elicits a response, not that it's intentional on the part of the person on the receiving end. Nor should they have to change how they dress in order to avoid inappropriate commentary and sexual assault.

Wibbs wrote: »

Likely not, it seems you've set out your stall and that's that and no debate is possible. Far too much reading what you want to read as opposed to what's actually written for me, so I'm out.

I honestly feel like this is the other way around. We both believe that women shouldn't have to endure this crap. But I found some of your comments provocative, with your retort to Lyaiera being a prime example. You've pulled out this definition of provocative, and are asserting that if someone dresses in a manner that they've described as provocative, then it's surely their intent to provoke a reaction. We all know that words can have more than one definition, and peoples use of any given word may not rigidly obey the definition listed in any given dictionary, and your insistence on the intent to provoke strikes me as setting your stall out.

lazybones32

Star Lord wrote: »

Calm down there Dougal. As you're well aware, people can only go on what you write, and what you've written does come across as blaming the girl you've quoted in this instance.


You've pulled out this definition of provocative, and are asserting that if someone dresses in a manner that they've described as provocative, then it's surely their intent to provoke a reaction. We all know that words can have more than one definition, and peoples use of any given word may not rigidly obey the definition listed in any given dictionary, and your insistence on the intent to provoke strikes me as setting your stall out.

People do not always go on what is written here but on their false understanding of what was written: either they don't understand the point that is being conveyed or they misinterpret it.

The person who dresses themselves must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. The catcallers must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. "Responsibility" has been the central theme of those who don't agree with the woman at the start of the video.

Would you like to provide us with some other definitions of 'provocative'? I thought the English language was easily understood by it's native speakers but you might well prove me wrong...

Star Lord

lazybones32 wrote: »

Would you like to provide us with some other definitions of 'provocative'? I thought the English language was easily understood by it's native speakers but you might well prove me wrong...

I already did, the definition from dictionary.com, back in post 24.
The main difference was the inclusion of intent to provoke in Wibbs definition, that was not in the definition I provided, and that has essentially been the crux of my argument.
Something can be provocative either in that it is intended to provoke a response, or in that it provokes a response regardless.
In the video in the first post the girl was wearing nothing more provocative than a skirt/pair of shorts (I'm not sure which it was) and a tshirt, yet still got subject to the cat-calling.

meeeeh

lazybones32 wrote: »

The person who dresses themselves must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. The catcallers must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. "Responsibility" has been the central theme of those who don't agree with the woman at the start of the video...

The only responsibility I will accept for dressing skimpy is for muffin top on show. I definitely won't accept responsibility for an idiot who is not developed enough to keep his mouth shut.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

lazybones32 wrote: »

The person who dresses themselves must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. The catcallers must accept their portion of responsibility for their actions. "Responsibility" has been the central theme of those who don't agree with the woman at the start of the video.

The person being catcalled needs to accept absolutely no responsibility for being catcalled. She needs to accept that it may happen, but it is in no way her fault or responsibility if other people's parents didn't bring them up right.

"I know I dress provocatively but I shouldn't have to deal with street harassment" is a perfectly rational, reasonable statement to make in a discussion on this topic. "Put some more clothes on or SHUT UP" is not. She clearly knows how she's dressing, she knows the bad and unwanted reactions it's going to get along with the good and intended reactions, but (and especially when contributing to a video about street harassment!) criticising those bad reactions and saying she should not have to deal with them is not immature, childish, or illogical. It's a statement of an ideal which all reasonable adults surely agree with.

And I have to say boys, classic reaction. There were women getting frotted on trains in the middle of the day in that video, but that doesn't deserve comment, does it? Na, straight to the nit-picky debate over "just how much is it her fault?"

diveout

I think there is a medium here between practicality and complete cuckoo land idealism.

If you go out showing four inches of cleavage and a skirt so short people can see what you had for breakfast, then seriously do not start bitching when you get attention, because you are inviting it.

How we dress is a code. It signifies. Just as a suit signifies professionalism and respect, if you dress in a provocative way, you are signifying availability and possibly a cost of E 10 an hour.

It's a bit like wearing a military uniform and wondering why people are saluting you.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

There is a difference between inviting attention and inviting harassment. You do not dress provocatively in the hopes of getting groped. Nobody with eyes can help seeing and judging people's appearance, but a small and sizeable portion of the population cross a line into intimidation and harassment. It's actually like going out in a military uniform and wondering why people are spitting in your face or shouting abuse at you - you should know that a lot of people disagree with what that uniform signifies, but you should also be able to expect to go out wearing it and have people respect your basic human dignity. Shouting sexually suggestive or threatening stuff at a stranger in the street or groping them because of what they are wearing is NOT a standard, well-adjusted response to seeing a sexually attractive woman and though it does happen, it shouldn't just be shrugged off.

The social acceptability of harassment has changed a lot over the past few decades, and it didn't do that by people dismissing this stuff as "shít happens, stop dressing like a slut". Every woman alive has been bothered on the street, we're all well aware of what might happen when we go certain places wearing certain things, that doesn't mean the victims shouldn't complain about it.

Star Lord

Taliyah Many Deck wrote: »

Na, straight to the nit-picky debate over "just how much is it her fault?"

That was not my angle at all, and if you perceived it to be, then I apologise.
What I was trying to get across that it wasn't the fault of the ladies in question at all. I was trying to put across that while she said she dressed provocatively, that doesn't mean that she was looking to provoke people.

Star Lord

Star Lord wrote: »

That was not my angle at all, and if you perceived it to be, then I apologise.
What I was trying to get across that it wasn't the fault of the ladies in question at all. I was trying to put across that while she said she dressed provocatively, that doesn't mean that she was looking to provoke people.

I don't think EB is talking about your posts.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Star Lord wrote: »

That was not my angle at all, and if you perceived it to be, then I apologise.
What I was trying to get across that it wasn't the fault of the ladies in question at all. I was trying to put across that while she said she dressed provocatively, that doesn't mean that she was looking to provoke people.

Oh I know,sorry, I wasn't directing that at you! No beef betwixt us

berrygood

As a woman, I wouldn't go out with the intention to provoke. That just seems very juvenile to me. I wear what I like and what I feel comfortable in. What other people might think of what I'm wearing never enters my head when I'm getting dressed in the morning. We tend to have very little control over how what we wear will affect others.

Case in point. I dress in a pencil skirt and suit jacket for work. It's office appropriate and appropriate for the job I do. However, the person I work with has started to make some inappropriate and uncomfortable comments about my clothes to the point that I will now not wear certain items as I know the comments I'll get. Think it, if you must, pig-man, but I really don't want to hear it!!!

A woman could be covered head to toe and some men will still make comments as they like to make women feel uncomfortable. And that's the problem. It doesn't matter how appropriately or inappropriately (to others) a woman might be dressed. These men will comment regardless. Thankfully, these men seem to be in the minority.

metaoblivia

This is what gets me regarding the issue of dressing provocatively:

I have seen men and women out and about, looking hot in their clothes, sometimes half disrobed, sometimes completely disrobed because I live in San Francisco and you're still allowed to get butt naked during a special event. When I was at the Pride parade a few weeks ago, I walked by more guys wearing nothing but c*ck rings than I ever cared to see. I have also seen the other side of "provocative dress" where I thought to myself, "Why? Why would you ever go out in that?" because it was visually very unpleasant and it takes a whole lot for me to think that.

Yet I have never once harassed or gawked at what some person walking down the road is wearing, no matter how much they were wearing or how little, nor how inappropriate I felt it was. Why? Because it's rude, and I'm not entitled enough to think that they're "asking for it" is a way to justify any comment I might make.

Many women know that they way they dress may be perceived by others as "provocative." They don't set out to provoke, but they know that they probably will end up provoking someone anyway. If you can legally walk down the street wearing it, you're not the problem. There's no difference between a guy wearing nothing but a c*ck ring walking around during a special event and a woman wearing a mini-skirt on any given day because they are perfectly within their legal rights to do so. They're not the problem. People who feel entitled to harass them are the problem, and that's why the focus should be on changing those behaviors and not policing the way other people dress.

paddy1990

Taliyah Many Deck wrote: »

There is a difference between inviting attention and inviting harassment. You do not dress provocatively in the hopes of getting groped. Nobody with eyes can help seeing and judging people's appearance, but a small and sizeable portion of the population cross a line into intimidation and harassment. It's actually like going out in a military uniform and wondering why people are spitting in your face or shouting abuse at you - you should know that a lot of people disagree with what that uniform signifies, but you should also be able to expect to go out wearing it and have people respect your basic human dignity. Shouting sexually suggestive or threatening stuff at a stranger in the street or groping them because of what they are wearing is NOT a standard, well-adjusted response to seeing a sexually attractive woman and though it does happen, it shouldn't just be shrugged off.

The social acceptability of harassment has changed a lot over the past few decades, and it didn't do that by people dismissing this stuff as "shít happens, stop dressing like a slut". Every woman alive has been bothered on the street, we're all well aware of what might happen when we go certain places wearing certain things, that doesn't mean the victims shouldn't complain about it.

It seems a bit stupid to do things that you know will get a certain result and then complain about the result.

If you ask women who dress provocatively if they think they won't ever get comments or harassment, then I think they will say that they know they will get it. It's like a guy in an English jersey walking down O Connell street. If he's lived in Ireland and knows that he might get some comments and harassment then it's a bit stupid to wear the jersey and then complain when you get the harassment. I'm not condoning the harassment but at some stage common sense has to be employed. It's not like the idiot men who do this are going to stop doing this so it seems like a pointless endevour.

For example, I am half english but I don't wear england jerseys in certain parts of Dublin. Should I wear the jersey and then come online and complain about it when I get hassle? My girlfriend wears some provocative clothes on nights out at times and gets hassle and has come to accept it now as it just comes with the territory.

Princess Peach

So a woman dressed nicely who gets cat called and sexually harassed should accept her responsibility in it, and not complain about it....

What about other forms of verbal harassment? People who are called at for being black, ginger, gay, short, fat, old.... Should they just accept it's going to happen and not complain?

Or maybe just some people are dicks and we shouldn't tolerate any of this sort of behaviour!

paddy1990

Princess Peach wrote: »

So a woman dressed nicely who gets cat called and sexually harassed should accept her responsibility in it, and not complain about it....

What about other forms of verbal harassment? People who are called at for being black, ginger, gay, short, fat, old.... Should they just accept it's going to happen and not complain?

Or maybe just some people are dicks and we shouldn't tolerate any of this sort of behaviour!

Big difference between a black/ginger/old/fat person walking down a street and being harassed and a girl wearing provocative clothes walking down a street and being harassed. I would have thought that was obvious.

berrygood

paddy1990 wrote: »

Big difference between a black/ginger/old/fat person walking down a street and being harassed and a girl wearing provocative clothes walking down a street and being harassed. I would have thought that was obvious.

But a woman can't control how what she's wearing will be perceived. I don't dress provocatively but I still get subjected to grossly inappropriate comments. The guy who makes these comments obviously thinks my clothes are provocative. They aren't, but I have no control over how he responds to what I wear. I shouldn't have to hear a running commentary, though!

I encounter plenty of attractive men as I go about my day. I don't comment or make gestures or anything else to them. I might think, "damn, I'd hit that like a screen door in a hurricane", but I wouldn't say it to the man!!!

Princess Peach

paddy1990 wrote: »

Big difference between a black/ginger/old/fat person walking down a street and being harassed and a girl wearing provocative clothes walking down a street and being harassed. I would have thought that was obvious.

I don't see the obvious difference?

What is the difference between a person who shouts abuse at good looking woman, and a person who shouts abuse at a person for any other reason?