Sexual Harassment.... eh, YEAH of course!

MrDarcy wrote: »

Sorry, she's meant to be a professional sports reporter and she is dressed appropriately for a porn set. She is also clearly flirting and throwing eyes at the news reporter. This isn't mature adult professional behaviour. So nobody should be surprised that she is not being treated accordingly.

Fair enough if you have that take on it, everyone perceives things differently.

Do you believe the men would act differently if it was a different girl? Are they doing it because they think that's what women want to hear? That's the part I don't get.

Procasinator wrote: »

My advice is that when discussing controversial topics write more clearly. Don't leave ambiguity. And when someone reads your opinion at face value, don't belittle people and claim we are all have an intellect of 14 year olds cause we can't read your mind. Your assumptions don't necessary match that of everyone else.

You've been around AH for a while, surely you've seen people been attacked for blanket statements against religion/race/culture/gender. Sometimes, people fully mean these blanket statements. Talking in generalisations is a dangerous business around here. And in some ways, it should be, they themselves shown to be dangerous throughout the past.

Oh, I know, I get called out for generalising constantly but it's not something I'm going to change. The way I post is fairly unadulterated, I just write what comes into my head and post. If people take it up the wrong way I'm sorry for that, but I'm not going to change it any time soon and hopefully some people will understand it and see posts for their context rather than pedantry.

I don't post too much in AH anymore because of this, though. In other forums the discussion tends to be more about the thread than the choice of words.

Oh well. I hope it's evident now how I meant my posts to come across, but if it isn't I'll live.

liah wrote: »

Oh, and I'm no feminist.

The man-hate is strong with this one.

A few cat calls are harmless and many women take them as a compliments. Its only seen as bad now thanks to overly zealous man-hating feminists like yourself on a power trip that take offense at everything and want to be treated like men.Funny how when women get older and lose their looks they start wishing they were getting those cat-calls again and get surgery.

uwala wrote: »

The man-hate is strong with this one.

A few cat calls are harmless and many women take them as a compliments. Its only seen as bad now thanks to overly zealous man-hating feminists like yourself on a power trip that take offense at everything and want to be treated like men.Funny how when women get older and lose their looks they start wishing they were getting those cat-calls again and get surgery.

Again, I'm not a feminist. I've never been one. I'm a humanist and I believe in actual equality, not this affirmative action style crap that simply promotes one group over the other. I don't believe in that. I'm arguing against the men presented in the thread. I'd definitely argue against women if they were presented in the same way. It's not my fault that statistically it's more likely for men to be behaving this way.

I've argued before that it's statistically true that there's more highly intelligent men than women, since women typically fill the averages and men the extremes (e.g. you'd also be more likely to find incredibly dumb men to balance out the above-average ones).

Also argued that because our brains are made differently, it's more likely you'd find a man who's good with directions and driving than a woman, because the way we process information is different.

Like I said, I'm not a feminist. It may come across that way in this thread, but that's due to the topic. You're just as likely to find me in another thread arguing against women and for men, e.g. in reference to rights to children, I think it's very unfair on men that women are given all the rights.

Feminists are those who have agendas to only promote women rather than actual equality, much like affirmative action movements in the states where you have to have a prerequisite number of women even if that means potentially not hiring a man who may be better. That's wrong, and I don't believe in that. I don't care what race you are, what gender you are, what faith you have. I really don't. I just want people to treat each other with respect and not give unfair benefits to people because of something like that.

I don't understand how that could be construed as being a feminist.

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Men = plural
Man = singular & plural

Therefore you need to say "these men" or "some men" as both man and men can be construed as plural which is then construed as all men.

Sigh.

We've been over this.

If I meant all men I would say all men.

"Man" is only singular, and never plural. Men is the only plural available for men. When speaking in context it's much simpler to say "men," since it can be assumed that the post is in reference to the topic. I don't see how that is a stretch.

Anyway, I still don't get the point of all this pedantry, I've made my point of view available and it's clearly not what you're implying, so why reiterate so many times?

MrDarcy wrote: »

And on the basis of all of that, do you not think it's unfair on men that she is attempting and probably suceeding in manipulating them by using the, "hey my t*ts are in your face but I'll scream harassment if you look", approach to sports reporting??? Is that not a form of sexual harassment in it's own right???

Lol, do you honestly think that's what goes through women's heads?

I think "some" men read WAY too much into signals girls give off. You see it all the time with them getting friend-zoned, or just read PI/RI; they think a girl's into them because she's nice or they think she's dressed like that for their entertainment and/or pleasure.

They've seen women's bodies their entire lives. They've seen billions of pairs of tits, billions of asses in real life and in the media. Can they not calm themselves down? It's nothing new and certainly no reason to act the fool in a work setting. I just don't understand why it even gets a reaction from them any more considering how commonplace it must be for them.

Men're allowed to look. Nobody's arguing against that. They can look all they please, and think whatever the hell kind of thoughts they want. What I don't understand is why they have to bring it to our attention when it's fairly well understood that it's not seen as flattery.

I don't care what a dude looks like, if he's shouting catcalls at me or trying to grab my ass in a club I'm still going to see him as a vain, inconsiderate perv. If he approaches me and pays me a genuine compliment, then I'll smile and thank him.

It's the lewd approach and lack of basic respect (again, they wouldn't treat female friends that way) that I refuse to get behind and I refuse to accept the excuse of "well they're men and that's just what they do and it's her fault for dressing that way." It's insulting to men, more than anything, which is why I asked earlier why so many men enjoy bringing themselves down to the level of children who can't control themselves. A number of men in this thread could've answered my question going on some of the remarks.

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Dead right!, man is used for plural purposes also, as in the context of mankind. Just ask Mr Armstrong!

So no you don't have to say "all men" but you do NEED to say "some men" to avoid confusion and specify.

Hahaha.

Well, I didn't use man, in reference to mankind, which would actually be a real generalization. So thanks for that. Kinda worked for me.

Just because I said men and didn't specify doesn't mean the specification was all.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Don't try to speak for all women. I've known plenty of girls who don't mind (or even enjoy) catcalls and some who actively try to get guys to leer at them.

I'm not saying it's the default attitude of women, but neither is cat-calling and leering the default attitude of men. Horses for courses.

I've known girls like that too, but that's not what the topic's about, is it?

liah wrote: »

Lol, do you honestly think that's what goes through women's heads?

I think "some" men read WAY too much into signals girls give off. You see it all the time with them getting friend-zoned, or just read PI/RI; they think a girl's into them because she's nice or they think she's dressed like that for their entertainment and/or pleasure.

They've seen women's bodies their entire lives. They've seen billions of pairs of tits, billions of asses in real life and in the media. Can they not calm themselves down? It's nothing new and certainly no reason to act the fool in a work setting. I just don't understand why it even gets a reaction from them any more considering how commonplace it must be for them.

Men're allowed to look. Nobody's arguing against that. They can look all they please, and think whatever the hell kind of thoughts they want. What I don't understand is why they have to bring it to our attention when it's fairly well understood that it's not seen as flattery.

I don't care what a dude looks like, if he's shouting catcalls at me or trying to grab my ass in a club I'm still going to see him as a vain, inconsiderate perv. If he approaches me and pays me a genuine compliment, then I'll smile and thank him.

It's the lewd approach and lack of basic respect (again, they wouldn't treat female friends that way) that I refuse to get behind and I refuse to accept the excuse of "well they're men and that's just what they do and it's her fault for dressing that way." It's insulting to men, more than anything, which is why I asked earlier why so many men enjoy bringing themselves down to the level of children who can't control themselves. A number of men in this thread could've answered my question going on some of the remarks.

Where's the self control in turning up for an interview on a subject on sexual harrassment of all things, with your obviously enhanced t*ts ready to pop out in front of the TV camera??? Why does she feel the need to do this??? Clearly because she is insecure and badly craves attention. What you are arguing for is that she has the right to dress like a porn star, you can almost see the girls nipples in that interview, clearly for the purposes of drawing attention to herself, but then she gets to decide the nature, type and the extent of that attention, what is acceptable to her and what isn't??? And you appear to be making the point that you'd have pretty much the same analysis yourself.

What if the guy interviewing her in that interview said to her, "hey I don't think you're appropriately dressed for this interview, maybe you need to go back to the wardrobe department and get yourself sorted out with a proper outfit..." Guess what, SEXUAL HARASSMENT!!!

MrDarcy wrote: »

Sorry, she's meant to be a professional sports reporter and she is dressed appropriately for a porn set. She is also clearly flirting and throwing eyes at the news reporter. This isn't mature adult professional behaviour. So nobody should be surprised that she is not being treated accordingly.

Let's get this straight.

By wearing clothes like that, I'm not sure she can complain if men look at her tits a bit more.

And I too can see the point that the difference between demurral and acceptance of these looks can be subject to the attractiveness of the man doing it.

I also accept that I'm far from innocent of the crime of being caught glancing at same.

But no clothing - not even wearing a bikini to work - should confer the right to men to leer, hoot or act like a pack of chimps toward a woman.

MrDarcy wrote: »

Where's the self control in turning up for an interview on a subject on sexual harrassment of all things, with your obviously enhanced t*ts ready to pop out in front of the TV camera??? Why does she feel the need to do this??? Clearly because she is insecure and badly craves attention. What you are arguing for is that she has the right to dress like a porn star, you can almost see the girls nipples in that interview, clearly for the purposes of drawing attention to herself, but then she gets to decide the nature, type and the extent of that attention, what is acceptable to her and what isn't??? And you appear to be making the point that you'd have pretty much the same analysis yourself.

What if the guy interviewing her in that interview said to her, "hey I don't think you're appropriately dressed for this interview, maybe you need to go back to the wardrobe department and get yourself sorted out with a proper outfit..." Guess what, SEXUAL HARASSMENT!!!

I'm not disagreeing with you about how her behaviour could be interpreted, thought I'd said that. I agree with you, for the record.

However, it still doesn't excuse the actions of the men. They're still adults and just because she could seem to be acting childishly or flirtatiously or provocatively or whatever else doesn't by any means give them any right to.

Should we act like idiots just because we're confronted with them? If a skanger came up to you and started throwing insults but being otherwise harmless, would you bring yourself down to their level and insult them or just ignore them and continue on?

I just don't think immaturity should be excused.

stovelid wrote: »

Let's get this straight.

By wearing clothes like that, I'm not sure she can complain if men look at her tits a bit more.

And I too can see the point that the difference between demurral and acceptance of these looks can be subject to the attractiveness of the man doing it.

I also accept that I'm far from innocent of the crime of being caught glancing at same.

But no clothing - not even wearing a bikini to work - should confer the right to men to leer, hoot or act like a pack of chimps toward a woman.

But which is it, either it is acceptable for a woman to wear a bikini to work or it isn't, and it's either acceptable or unacceptable for a good reason. While your being so descriptive, what is the difference between glancing at a provacatively dressed woman and leering at same???

There is a massive difference between just looking (it is essentially invited) and full-on sleazing - and you know it. And no, it doesn't make a difference IMO whether I fancy the man or not - even though genius earlier decided it does, with fuk all to back it up. And yes, I like it if guys are complimentary to me - have no problem with it whatsoever and I dislike when other women complain about same. I also dislike when other women complain about e.g. strip clubs.