Capitalization is a waste of time
bump with new batch of giveaways 🌟❤️️
translation by me
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank You
Comment has been collapsed.
Trying to copy Itachi's Amaterasu?
Comment has been collapsed.
BUMP!
I just realised that the acronym for this thread is SHAT
Comment has been collapsed.
As a father of 5 girls thank you for bringing this issue up and drawing attention to it. As a regular person it always saddened me the way women are treated in society and lately it only seems to be getting worse in the US, can't speak for other countries. Its sad you have to fight for this but keep it up and in the meantime have a bump.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't know if it's worse or if i'm more aware of it happening. or maybe both?
it might also be that people got tired of all this crap so they speak up, there's always a "shame" factor that makes victims remain silent. internet also helps a lot and it wasn't mainstream ~10 years ago, so everything helps to spread the word. 🌟
Comment has been collapsed.
I still think a big factor in these subjects is exposure. Given I'm not a woman, I live in the UK, and have a bedraggled "thank fuck my office shift is over" appearance any time I'm out in public, my personal exposure to catcalling is almost zero. Whereas as a woman out in... crap, can't recall. Was it Uruguay? Your experience is gonna be crazy multiples of mine. I'd like to think that a lot of the people who disregard or scoff at the issue only do so out of unfamiliarity, or that unnoticed rift in exposure. The line between "that one time some asshole stranger harassed another stranger" and "the third time I personally got catcalled today, the eighth time this week" is a pretty severe one.
TL;DR warning!
(This wasn't gonna be a big post, but I failed at articulating so gather round, it's story time! :P)
The last time I was anywhere near a catcalling incident was when an odd elderly gentleman decided he was going to just talk at me on a bus. I made a point of hanging back so he could get by me when everyone was disembarking at the main station, and in his gratitude he decided to open up with overly familiar, chatty conversation. I just smiled and nodded as anyone would, but once we got off and passed the queue waiting to get onto the bus next, he tapped me on the back of the arm as I started to overtake him.
I glanced back, expecting some more idle and over-enthusiastic chat, so pulled out one of my earphones.
He gestured to an attractive woman who was at the front of the queue and said in an open talking voice "She's got nice tits eh?".
My pokerface must have fucking leveled up.
Its like he was trying to murder me with the douche-chill I got.
I couldn't even form a reply beyond just a "What? Ugh, Jesus" in a disbelieving tone, and just walked away stuck somewhere between horror and wanting to lose my cool. I dunno what it was but it took me so off-guard that my brain bluescreened. He was the kind of person that (I know this is judgemental) I couldn't tell if he was drunk, high, bordering on senility or just a mix of dumb and socially oblivious. I say 'old' but he had little trouble walking, so all I can think of was that he was trying way too hard to buddy up to me by ripping off the worlds worst 'one of the lads' acts? All I knew is that the moment those words slipped out of his lips I just wanted to mash the 'abort' button on the whole situation, fearing somehow my previous pleasantries during the disembark might somehow imply I was 'with' him. So I put distance between us while carrying on with my mental bluescreen.
It shouldn't have even been an issue to respond to but it just came so far out of left field that I got smothered under the cringe. The conflict of a run-down harmless older guy dropping that bomb just randomly shook me y'know? I mean when someone is old enough, or looks destitute enough, or like they're in hard times, there is an unspoken rule (and reflex?) to allow them more tolerance than you would a normal functioning adult, much like how you treat a child and give them space for being odd because 'they dont know better'. The whole thing was... egh. Bluh? Grurhbl. I didn't even glance at the woman beyond a peripheral acknowledgement when getting off, and I sure as hell didn't look after he said that. I just wanted out. The embarrassment I was feeling was killing me, and the weirdest part is that I was feeling embarrassed for the guy, because he was too dumb to even comprehend the wrecking ball of idiocy he just casually dropped in front of a bunch of people all facing directly towards us.
Whhhyyyy :U
The reason I bring this up is because to someone who has to deal with catcalling on a regular basis, I imagine it doesn't take you so off-guard nearly as much due to how often it occurs. I mean, surely it'd still piss you off, but the novelty impact of it probably wore off long ago, right? It stops being a thing that shocks outright and is just another irritating speedbump? This instance was far from one of the harsher catcalls sure, but it was like a suckerpunch that knocked me out of my travelling autopilot and into an awkward ocean of "What the fuck?". That disparity in reaction and regularity seems like an important thing here. I mean, opponents to this threads sentiment didn't even seem to be aware of the more intimidation-driven side of catcalling, and as a result viewed it all one-dimensionally as just its lightest form. I wonder how they would respond if they had more exposure to it, such as living in a different country with a different set of common values, or maybe even just in a different town or even neighborhood where it just happens more often. Frequency and intensity are a major point in this. Sorta like how someone who has witnessed or been part of a pattern of domestic abuse is going to have a dramatically different stance on the subject than an alternate-universe self who never had to see/experience those things. The mind has a way of conveniently condensing subjects that aren't real parts of our own life, which lets people glaze over important stuff. Its so much easier to be reductive of something that is a non-issue to your own life, after all. It runs on the same logic people use when they venture into random threads and dole out myopic 'advice' that nearly always starts out with "Just..."
I even recall someone in a thread here on steamgifts claiming that online gaming communities aren't remotely as hostile as people make them out to be. Personal experiences are the fulcrum of perception, and even a usually open mind can forget this when they have plenty of experience with internet outrage and militant extremists, as that tends to get superimposed over any communication that isn't completely neutered of emotes, personal motivation or passion.
Spreading awareness without it turning into a minefield can be hard. Even where a persons frustrations are justified (such as your opening post), people are all too quick to mentally red-flag things over the smallest of signs. One says 'SJW', the other says 'MRA'. Getting past the righteous (and not-so-righteous) prickling and getting down to the meat of the subject has always been the single biggest tripping point of these issues. When you multiply that with people forgetting the differences in countries, so many wires get crossed. :/
At risk of spamming you even more, here's an anecdote about locale that I ran into :
I was in a relationship with someone out in america a good ten years or so ago, and we had taken to trying online gaming to fill in the together-times. I can't remember if it was TF2 or LoL, but we were bantering on skype along with my brother. I forget the joke someone made towards me/my partner, but I responded with an exaggerated texan accent, poking fun of myself as part of the jab "Now hold on there, you can't talk to muh woman like that!". She got quiet, and later on ended up having a tiff about it. While I was doubling down on myself as the obvious butt of the joke, it actually landed way differently for her. Why? Well, I totally forgot that she lived in the bible belt, and had frequent exposure to a lot of shit-eating sexist attitudes, so my obvious joke actually hit surprisingly close to home because of her usual weekly experiences. Exposure to local stressors is a major thing we overlook. It's sorta like how common advice for dealing with grouchy strangers is to not take them to heart, because you don't know what life situation they have going on, so their real beef probably isn't with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, that guy in the bus was really a sad one. he makes himself look like an idiot and anyone else he's talking to 🤦
there are three important factors that made me reach this point and one is exposure, as you said.
imagine you get insulted multiple times when you go out. at first you might feel confused: "did i do something wrong?, this person is insane?".
after years of getting the same treatment, what's your reaction? how does it make you feel?
people don't realize this isn't an isolated case, i don't get harassed once a month when there's full moon and the planets align. i've been dealing with this since school (because it's cool to get "compliments" when you're 10-12 years old, so nice eh?) and it can happen at any time without me knowing if it will escalate, if the guy will follow me home, if there's more people waiting ahead, if they are waiting for the perfect moment to assault me, if there's gonna be physical contact, etc.
the second is you feel like you're a piece of meat for everyone in the street to be used as a sex dispenser.
i stopped replying years ago when i used to confront them so i know what i can expect when i give them attention, i can confirm most advances are made to get your number, a date, or sexual favors.
and the third is insecurity, as i mentioned in the 1st point you never know what's going to happen.
what if you confront the guy, maybe he gets offended? and if you don't?
and if he's following you? and if he's walking alongside you for 2 blocks?
people are quick to dismiss everything that's going on because it's easier. this is like ignoring racism and homophobia, it only escalates and normalizes dangerous behavior.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very timely article:Me Too, I Think? When Sexual Harassment Feels All Too Normal
" This man didn’t sexually assault me, or masturbate in front of me, or text an unsolicited dick pic. But his behavior affected me; it undermined my ability to do my job well. "
" While men can dismiss a whole range of behavior, women rearrange our lives to avoid it. "
And this:
Meanwhile, men like Weinstein and Cosby ― the glimmering tip of the iceberg ― allow the millions of lesser sexual harassers to feel good about themselves, to sleep better at night, thinking they aren’t that bad.
-Laura Bassett
Senior Politics Reporter, HuffPost
Comment has been collapsed.
Great, illuminating article; belated thanks for sharing! (I referenced it in a later discussion.)
BUMP
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/OZX1tpb
Comment has been collapsed.
GA-Bump!
[A Long Way Home](https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/QTKfS/a-long-way-home) | Yirg | November 24th
[Spooky Cats](https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/SeCe4/spooky-cats) | Yirg | November 24thComment has been collapsed.
Oh damn, I've been blacklisted in by one of the giveaways creators. At least this is a bump
Comment has been collapsed.
Verbal abuse is not violence. Your right, it did lead to violence. Yours against HIM. You literally assaulted him. You ran away before he could retaliate. He was a jerk and uber douche at best. You are a criminal. Aggravated assault. Did you report the incident to the police? If not, then it's even worse. An actual act of violence was committed by you, and you fled the scene.
Before you respond with rape apologist sentiment and anti-male garbage, I myself have been a victim of violence. Real violence, not just words. I've been beaten and raped and degraded for years as a child. That was abuse, that was violence. Things a random dude says on the street is not violence. The fact of the matter is, he was a jerk. He may have even deserved it, but you are not judge jury and executioner. We have standards. You committed an act of violence on someone that didn't lay a finger on you. When you were in a group of people. That is abhorrent. I'd be on your side wholeheartidly if not for your act of actual and literal violence. If you consider that victimization, then i submit you have no clue what victimization is. No one laid a finger on you. Any speech you received was from individuals. Whether you perceive it to be a constant daily deluge, it doesn't mean it warranted actual violence to a specific individual.
This is not to say that people should "Suck it up" and that it is acceptable to take verbal abuse. But it does mean there is a line, and we draw it very clearly. No one forced you into anything.
I, yes as a man, get much "verbal abuse" as well. Very specifically in regards to abuse as well. I spent a long time with PTSD dealing with things, and verbal ridicule can be hard. Not as hard as rapes and beatings and daily degradation verbally. I have experienced daily verbal abuse from rape activists, telling me that it isn't real when a man experiences rape. That isn't fun. Ridicule comes from everyone. You know what I don't do? Pepper spray people in the face and run away to avoid retaliation. Because that is a bridge too far. Everyone is deserving of basic respect. We have laws to ensure basic safety to all citizens. You violated the law, and performed a violent act. That's a big no-no. I'd be willing to consider what he did threatening, but the way you describe it is as if you were "Fed Up" dealing with such things. You don't have that right. No one does. To violate a persons actual safety, because you don't like words. If he was physically threatening, then the safer way out (since you were with friends) was leaving, getting a ride. Hell, even yelling at him to scare him may have worked. But leaping to violence is pretty dramatic. You know what you could have done? turn around and say "Okay, back the fuck off!" and wield your pepper spray as a threat. But you went for damage. That was malicious. Everything else is justification in my opinion. Unless there is some context I'm not seeing here.
When the best you can present for being assaulted is that you have had to endure "Words", to label yourself a victim deserving of retaliating with violence. Well, I'm glad we do not have this conversation in person. Because "I" would be in danger from you. Meanwhile, i find your words offensive. I find your assault due to words offensive to those that actually experience assault or verbal abuse. Because you took it too far. And yet, i would never lay a finger on you. Because that would make me a violent hypocrite.
Comment has been collapsed.
Verbal abuse is not violence.
Not sure where you're from, but where I'm from, if someone is threatening - it's a crime. It's assault, and you're allowed to defend yourself if you feel you're in reasonable danger. I have no idea of the exact circumstances of the OP's situation, so I won't make assumptions.
"In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.[1] It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact."
"Prevention of crime[edit]
This may or may not involve self-defense in that, using a reasonable degree of force to prevent another from committing a crime could involve preventing an assault, but it could be preventing a crime not involving the use of personal violence."
Comment has been collapsed.
One party's subjective feeling does not make for a threat. Otherwise, many many more people would be guilty of assault.
Let's suppose some racist is in a restaurant and a young black man walks in. The racist feels threatened. Has he been assaulted? Of course not! Does he now have the right to prevent the "crime" with "self-defense"? Of course not!
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone is threatening violence or an unsolicited sexual act, it's assault, at least where I'm from.
I realize I left that out when I said "if someone is threatening ." My apologies. I often type less than I should in order to keep things short and to the point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your wording just seemed to suggest that someone feeling threatened was enough for something to constitute a threat.
The OP never mentions being threatened. In fact, she mentions that she was walking with a friend, and thus had the numbers advantage. And the person you were originally replying to (ElvisPrime) is correct that being an annoying douche is not the same as making a threat that legally warrants violence.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're both making a lot of assumptions based on what little the OP said.
I'd prefer to avoid doing that myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you (and most others here) are assuming that she did nothing wrong, and we shouldn't be shocked that she very well may be unashamedly sharing how she assaulted a man.
When I was a kid I learned that hitting others if they called me names or otherwise annoyed me was wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not assuming anything. I've not said anywhere in the thread whether or not I approve of what the OP did or how she reacted, and I won't unless I know all the details.
What I do get, however, is the message of the thread, and I approve of that.
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference is that merely existing in the same space as you is a passive event, that is expected in any culture that more than one race or group inhabits. Following someone, giving them unwanted attention and escalating in intensity up into open insults is an active choice, and a natural result of increasing degrees of unwanted attention is intimidation, whether fully intended or otherwise.
Other than being an active choice, in your example the racist does not have a reasonable basis for feeling that they may be attacked, nor is the fear they feel justified in any of the black mans actions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Educate yourself before you mansplain the meaning of words.
Here's a place to start: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html
Comment has been collapsed.
"Mansplain" eh? That in of itself is a hypocritical statement. what is the meaning of your word exactly?
You dismiss what i say, because of factors i cannot control, namely my gender/sex. If i was a woman, this would be acceptable to say then on that fact alone?
That article is insanity. How you take the meaning of a thing is very different. I can perceive and be very triggered by something, but that doesn't make that thing violence. That's my subjective reaction, and it is independent of someones subjective action
I advocate for equal treatment, i don't think "he" or "She" are even relevant here.Only in so far as some people use it to justify unequal treatment of a demographic.
Comment has been collapsed.
When someone receives unwanted attention of a sexual nature, that gradually escalates onwards up to the point of insults and hostility, why exactly are you placing the onus of responsibility on the target and not the one sustaining the negative contact? At what point should a target take steps to forcefully halt the confrontation? Are you suggesting that women who are targeted like this need to remain passive up until it escalates to the point the aggressor grabs them? Because if we follow the pattern of thought, you could even continue to blame the target for using pepper spray at that point, because he 'only' tried to stop her and get her attention, and there was no evidence he would continue to escalate after that point. See, the onus isn't upon the target to give the benefit of the doubt. Once it turned to insults, once he started following her, she can ascertain that he likely wishes to continue escalating. Once someone shows that they are reacting with growing hostility to non-responses, are you suggesting she continues to ignore and simply hope that he doesn't go up that next notch? Perhaps she should respond negatively, even though he is already escalating while she is passive? Should she break into a run, hoping that wouldn't only spur him on when he has already turned to slurs? Should she call out for help, when nobody had stepped in (or was not present?). It's all very easy to demand a higher road of a target, but it is not your choice whether they should deign to risk that. Challenging them overtly may cause them to back down, or it may cause quicker escalation. Threatening with a self-defense weapon may cause them to back down, or it may cause them to immediately become violent. The best way to ensure safety at that point, is to use the Less-Than-Lethal weapon to disable/hinder the instigator, and then immediately remove yourself from their vicinity so that they do not have the choice to continue the incident. People who are consciously uncivil and actively seek to discomfort their target for their own catharsis do not deserve extra considerations towards their comfort, especially when they are behaving in a manner that can be construed as threatening.
Even had she chosen to report the incident, what do you feel would have become of it? In singular (non-repeating) occurrences with strangers like this, by the time anybody is called to the scene, the aggressor is very unlikely to be found. While the guy was pepper-sprayed making him far easier to ID, the nature of the incident means that even if the police found in her favor, the absolute worst he is likely to face is an overnight stay in a cell. People keep saying "yeah but harassment is already illegal" but illegality as a counterpoint only works if the instigator is likely to be punished if reported. In conflicts like this where the people involved (and witnesses) almost always leave the area, when there is no lasting proof, and the asshole in question can easily deny it unless it was recorded, the target has almost zero recourse unless a local patrol happens to have seen it unfold or were nearby when bystanders can still give witness. Also, saying that someone 'fled the scene' when they are retreating from an increasingly hostile person is more than a little dishonest. 'Running away to avoid retaliation' is more accurately stated as 'got away from the aggressor'. It was not the OPs choice to engage or sustain the event, and the pepper spray was used to disengage. That is a critical thing you are disregarding.
For someone trying to lend validity to their opinions by citing their own victimhood, I find your stance to be strange. Surely if you have been beaten and raped for years as a child, you must be familiar with how intimidation, overpowering, and even learned helplessness / passiveness works, and what we can infer lesser degrees of that can potentially be? Or how an abuser can become emboldened when their bad behavior continues without challenge even in the extremely short term, or how even neglecting to respond in a manner they feel is satisfactory can cause them to push harder, or even be interpreted as an insult or challenge? Your approach is an awful lot like people I see online claiming to have suffered clinical depression, but then weaponising that supposed experience to declare other immediate sufferers as liars or attention-seekers based on their own flawed analysis ("Nobody who REALLY has depression ever talks about it in the open / seeks advice!", etc). Your experiences may be genuine, but they do not grant you perfect authority or total clarity on the subject and I implore you to consider the subject more thoroughly before laying such bitter judgements.
Comment has been collapsed.
i aint gann read all that put it in 3 words plz like... dont be mean
Comment has been collapsed.
allso i copying all that is if i ever want to give over complacted answer to win arguments this would be perfct ....one day some one sid ur dumb ... thin bamb this XD...i win
Comment has been collapsed.
A summary? I uh... erm.
"For someone who has survived abuse, I find your stance to be strangely fixed in defense of the instigator. I don't think you have fully considered the situation, especially how the nature of intimidation or emotional parasitism operates. It sucks you had to go through what you did, but it doesn't lend your post the credence you seem to think it does, and if anything I think your ordeal is done a disservice by using it to prop up such a short-sighted response."
I usually write way too much because I suck at articulating the reasons why. Is that any better? |3c
Comment has been collapsed.
Firstly, I worded it that way, and mentioned my own abuse, because frequently the first order of business for most folks arguing the point is to dismiss statements or arguments on that basis. I wanted to sidetrack that by telling that truth. That i'm not some "Bro" apologist. If genders were reversed, I'd say the same. The important bit is escalation and who does it. My mentioning of previous personal troubles was to alleviate that, not to lend special credence. I'm not trying to leverage victim status to prove a point, i'm doing so to prevent being labeled with an aggressor status (of which i'm very keenly familiar with, as it is the instant go to in these scenarios). Which FYI, is very obviously a likely outcome, if you read her "FAQ".
Secondly, "Instigator"? You're assuming the instigator. Why? She was in a group, he was not. If it was a group of men, and one woman and she got pepper sprayed with the exact same story. She was berating them (god knows It does happen) Would you hold the same position? She was the instigator, she must have deserved it? So one guy in the group attacks her and they all run away. One might say that is the "violent offender" escaping justice. In OP and this last example, it doesn't matter. If it comes to blows regardless of who starts it or what their plumbing is, then if there is an offending party, you report it.
I don't want anyone being hurt, but there was only one hurt party here. She leveraged her experiences of being catcalled constantly, but that doesn't mean any random individual deserves to be violently attacked, because you have feelings. We have to be responsible for own actions as adults. The only crime I actually saw in OP story is her own. Making advances are not illegal. She does not mention threats, she mentions catcalls. She said "He needed to be stopped"... For what? catcalling someone? Or was he threatening others? You say i assume, but i don't. this entire thread is about catcalling, not threats, not assaults. Read the FAQ she makes, and it makes that evident. It reads like vigilante justice. Which is again, why i say "Judge jury and executioner", because that's how it reads. She finds something distasteful, and decides that it violence. DECIDES. Then violent counter-reaction is now acceptable. Um, NO, it's not.
Comment has been collapsed.
im so proud of myself i read all half of that ..............it sid dont be mean
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a great, thoughtful response and one that captures the essence of the problem in a logical and well-argued manner. I agree I find ElvisPrime's post a rather bizarre way to react, especially after everything he has been through. I can't imagine the horror of what he experienced but it is unfortunate he seems quick to trivialise the plight of those who did not suffer to the degree he did. You do and did a great job of articulating your reasoning, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Comment has been collapsed.
I realized a long time ago a simple truth. That most things are grey. You must hold similar standards for all. That in the act of being just, it is very easy to do unjust things. This is why the american embodiment of "Justice" is blind, with scales and a sword. Blind to faction, class, economics etc. Scales represent just and fair reasoning, and the sword for swift punishment should the scales not balance. But you can't assume aggressors or victims. You most certainly cannot dole out justice as you see fit on your own. An act of violence is an act of violence. The only excuse is in self defense. Of imminent personal threat. Having the other party being a man, is not sufficient. In truth, nothing in OPs post indicates imminent threat. It's literally about catcalling.
In theory (and i would never make this argument), if I started spouting statistics about the psychological harm of "Nagging" and dragging a person down psychologically. That a girlfriend berates her boyfriend daily, and he takes it. He get's depressed and despondant, and one day, he simply can't take it anymore. He punches her in the face. Is that okay? would you say "Well, she deserved it!"? Cause i wouldn't. Just because something can be psychologically damaging, doesn't mean you get to be violent. At least in this case, you can at least call it harassment. One person was berating the other constantly and deliberately. Again, switch gender roles and it does not matter to me. Damage is damage. You don't get to be violent, because of things you subjectively perceive.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think your last example is a fitting analogy for the situation at hand, as completely different factors are at play and the circumstances are not the same. It would be wrong to equate what you described with the kind of harassment this thread deals with. For the record, I do not think that resorting to physical violence is justified in that scenario, but that isn't really relevant here. In fact, I don't believe anyone is trying to justify the use of physical violence as a reaction to a psychological stressor - unless, as you say yourself, it also involves an imminent threat of bodily harm. What I find puzzling is that you seem unable or unwilling to consider the reality of what a situation like the one Mully describes entails (especially given your own personal experience). I don't know the details of what happened there beyond what has been shared in the thread, but I do not find it far-fetched to imagine that the threat of physical violence and bodily harm was real and concrete. Also, as Uroboros managed to explain so much better than I could, where, exactly, do you draw the line in an ambivalent and potentially dangerous situation like this?
Because if we follow the pattern of thought, you could even continue to blame the target for using pepper spray at that point, because he 'only' tried to stop her and get her attention, and there was no evidence he would continue to escalate after that point. See, the onus isn't upon the target to give the benefit of the doubt. Once it turned to insults, once he started following her, she can ascertain that he likely wishes to continue escalating. Once someone shows that they are reacting with growing hostility to non-responses, are you suggesting she continues to ignore and simply hope that he doesn't go up that next notch? Perhaps she should respond negatively, even though he is already escalating while she is passive? Should she break into a run, hoping that wouldn't only spur him on when he has already turned to slurs? Should she call out for help, when nobody had stepped in (or was not present?).
etc.
Your intentions may be well-meaning but in practice what you are contending in this particular context comes off as naive at best, belittling and dismissive at worst, or just strangely out of touch.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay. So i go to bar (the place isn't relevant) a women follows me out. At what point is it okay for me to hit her with Pepper spray? She's bigger than me, and seems to be wanting sex with me. What is the threshold before I can perform an act of physical violence on her before she performs one on me?
Comment has been collapsed.
That is something you and I must decide for ourselves, dependant on situation and context. (We could try filling in circumstantial details to make the situation as concrete as possible, but ultimately it will end up being a judgment call). We seem to agree that imminent threat of bodily harm is a good starting point, though.
But I think we're talking in circles and past each other. The core issue, I think, is that I don't have difficulty imagining how someone who lives with the constant stress of unwanted sexual advances, often with the explicit or latent threat of physical violence (beyond the verbal abuse they must endure) is in a situation where self-defence is often necessary before it's too late. Was the pepper spay justified in this scenario? I honestly do not know. However, I will say that I won't insist on adherence to rigid universal standards of legal or even moral nature when it comes to the appropriateness of what I will in good faith assume to be self-preserving behaviour in the face of hostility and threat to one's emotional and physical well-being. I hope I managed to clarify my position on this issue a bit better with this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't particularly find a problem with your statement in general. I support anti-bullying and anti-violence. But not by stooping to the same levels.
But i think the "Dependent on situation and context" is a bit of a cop out. If the roles were exactly reversed. Body size, physical threat level but gender is the same. Would you be okay with the conclusion? The male perceived real threat in the same exact way. So he pepper sprayed the "idiot", the "Subhuman". He wasn't going to wait around for her to do something to him (all comments made by OP in the links you provided). Would that ring true for you? would you be saying "That man lived with constant stress of unwanted sexual advance, often with the explicit or latent threat of physical violence (beyond the verbal abuse they must endure)". Does that sound right?
This is the factor i want to stress upon. that we be aware of our own biases. Our own prejudgments. Men and women are different, but i don't like the idea of making special laws/rules for specific groups. I think a general liberal approach emphasizing individual responsibility and rights blind and broad enough to apply to all people is appropriate. Throw something out of balance, and it's out of balance. I don't know the situation, i don't assume OP is a victim or an aggressor, but a lot of people here sure do assume the former it seems.
Can you honestly say, the roles reversed in terms of gender, but all other factors being equivalent, you'd be as support of the OP Being a man describing a woman he perceived a threat from and caused violence because "He wasn't going to wait around for them to do something", that subhuman. It's shocking to me, the wording and intent placed in the entire post. It does not ring true as a credible threat to me. I have doubt. But my doubt shouldn't matter, because such things should be reported if they are indeed a legitimate threat. If i was being harassed, I would absolutely do exactly that if it was not something resolvable. If it was this reverse sex scenario, i'd be just as skeptical. I hope so at least
Comment has been collapsed.
I support anti-bullying and anti-violence. But not by stooping to the same levels.
Agreed. I don't think anyone was advocating stooping to the lows of the perpetrators in these kinds of situations. I certainly wasn't.
But i think the "Dependent on situation and context" is a bit of a cop out. [...]
Fair enough. But I feel I cannot give a generalised answer without failing to do the reality of the situation justice. Context is key. My issue is less whether I think pepper-spraying by Mully was justified here (as I said I honestly cannot say) but with the manner in which you chastised her for it with the reasoning you provided. In other words, I can neither condone nor condemn this action just based on what we know, but I can understand if Mully (or somebody in a comparable situation - even if the roles were reversed) felt compelled to act this way.
would you be saying "That man lived with constant stress of unwanted sexual advance, often with the explicit or latent threat of physical violence (beyond the verbal abuse they must endure)". Does that sound right?
Can you honestly say, the roles reversed in terms of gender, but all other factors being equivalent [...]
This is where things get complicated. Because it is a fact that in our current culture, for the overwhelming majority of people, the reality of harassment and abuse is a very different one for women than for men. The vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men. (That is not to say that men are not also victims or that women are not perpetrators because obviously, that is not the case). Sorry if I don't provide links here, but I take it as read that this is common knowledge. What is less obvious is the insidious nature of sexual harassment in a male-dominated culture that normalises this behaviour, as Khazadson mentions here, or the readiness of men to judge and dismiss and look the other way (as described in this article, for example). These are longstanding issues ingrained in culture and they have manifested themselves in the social dynamic between men and women. The point of all this being, that I do not think it is productive or appropriate to engage in hypotheticals with a simple gender reversal, because the essence of the argument, the very reality to which it pertains, would be lost in the process. A simple role switch fails to account for all of this context. You can't reverse genders and keep all factors equivalent, not without ripping the entire fabric of the cultural and social discourse apart, at which point it becomes meaningless. I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy to illustrate my point, but I'm coming up short right now.
Men and women are different, but i don't like the idea of making special laws/rules for specific groups. I think a general liberal approach emphasizing individual responsibility and rights blind and broad enough to apply to all people is appropriate. Throw something out of balance, and it's out of balance.
I understand what you are saying and I don't think that is what people in general want either. I'm guessing few people would want special rules to apply to men and women differently, we should all be equal before the law. But, to put it broadly, sexism in favour of men where women are disadvantaged is real, it manifests itself in all walks of life, and there is no escaping it (there are exceptions of course - there always are, but my general point stands). It is especially dangerous when discussing sexual harassment and abuse, as the power dynamic most definitely swings in favour of men. The balance has been out of whack for a long time (maybe since forever?) and I think people who fail to recognise or acknowledge this are in denial (wilfully or not). This is not to say that we should automatically be biased towards favouring women over men, regardless of context, just to "make up" for the imbalance, by the way. But awareness and empathy go along way, and judiciousness over one-sided and extreme views are what should and will win the day for the good of all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate the response and civility. I don't have any ill will to anyone. But i think truth should win the day. We just don't know. either way, being obscene is obscene. Being violent without justification is dangerous to life and limb for them both. I don't like the promoting of a kind of vigilantism. That's dangerous stuff, and is a short skip from that to Lynch Mobs. Moral Panics. Social Hysteria.
Comment has been collapsed.
Likewise, I appreciate your measured reply. But in regards to your final point, I'm not sure I get how you see this thread as promoting vigilantism. These issues of sexism and harassment have just started to come to the fore of our cultural consciousness, the debate has just begun. We didn't even talk about these things openly or to this extent until relatively recently. I don't see anybody advocating for retaliatory violence against sexual harassers, or cries for "street justice" demanding blood. We're nowhere near lynch mobs or moral panic or mass hysteria. We've only just begun talking.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that emotionengine has covered my general sentiments pretty well, so I'll try to avoid repeating stuff as not to bombard you, but I just wanted to drop in my +1 here. Given how charged the subject is, I do appreciate the civil discourse, and wanted to apologise in case I came off as a bit of a butthead in my original reply given how personal and deep the whole abuse subject is. After letting myself get dragged back into the topic by being dumb enough to glance over the comments, I worry that my tact may have been lacking. :P
(edit : So much for avoiding repetition. If you don't reply it's all good, haha)
I will add though that had the sexes been reversed, I would have been totally in favor of a guy using pepper spray on a woman, if he genuinely felt intimidated and wanted to preempt a worsening of the situation. Perhaps the general opinion would disagree me due to gender bias, and I do understand your annoyance at the typical assumptions upon sex, but I don't see this as a matter of sex or numbers. Even where a potential attack isn't considered a 'credible threat', nobody should be expected to endure hostility under the assumption that the instigator won't continue to escalate, or under the assumption that should they actually attack, they don't pose much of a mortal threat. If someone is capable of being so blatantly inappropriate, they are also be brazen enough to carry a weapon. Size and fine physical attunement matters far less when a weapon is a potential factor, and while it does no good to assume every stranger could be carrying one, when facing an increasingly hostile individual, it also does no good to assume what level of threat they can pose.
In a civilised society, we should be able to defend ourselves with an appropriate level of force to ensure not just our safety, but to hold our ground where basic functioning in public society is concerned. While I do appreciate that this opens a lot of loopholes for unsavory people to exploit (and I do actually have a personal distaste for LTL weapons due to apathetic misuses even by police), to be overly lenient in the face of such behavior in public spaces only allows it to breed. Not only does unpunished incidents allow brattish individuals to become more comfortable and more likely to push the boundary, but the more we hold their targets as the primary focus of responsibility, the more we normalise it. I truly do understand your worries about the slippery slope we find ourselves on, but these things are rarely a singular slope in a singular direction. I see it as more of a peak with slopes on all sides. Any stance taken to an extreme leads to bizarre shifts in law, but it is important to remember that small steps do not guarantee the eventual arrival of the lunatic fringe. We certainly have to be on guard for it given how crazy our legal and political systems are, but to call someone who got intimidated by an actively hostile catcaller a 'violent criminal' is more than a little alarmist and is glazing over the situation, IMO. I appreciate that you disagree and I feel I have a grasp of your reasoning, but even had the sexes been reversed, I would have still sided against the catcaller. Perhaps law enforcement or bystanders may not agree with me (and that is a telling red flag about things we need to work on in our culture), but we should hold our cultural values responsible for that, and not the person defending themselves. While there is a big gray area here given we only have one side of the story, we can only cast so much doubt on what we are told before we are just saying to someone "I don't believe you were being harassed enough to justify physically forcing it to stop", and without anything to back it up we are making quite an assumption. I'm sure you understand how much more dangerous that is as a slippery slope, when dealing with abuses and hostility, right?
I also find that prejudice is less a binary of yes/no, and more a landscape of dips and rises. The shortcomings and advantages of belonging to any group aren't always obvious unless you have lived it, and even then one life doesn't reveal all the hidden pitfalls. I mean, we have plenty of guys who are actually part of the "lol white male problems" social media clowns after all. It does frustrate me that there are a lot of high profile sentiments that happily pidgeonhole anything male, caucasian or cisgendered as facing no issues, or worse, unironically use them as a strawman where they are not actual factors, but we have to be careful to not falsely equate that passive sexism/racism with all other equivalent issues raised. It's natural to fear that the age-old pressures will be doubled up and further dehumanise us, but we have to remember that such fear for ones own interests can feed bias. After all, that is how the extremists were born out of the original feminist movement, and how social justice groups generated the openly prejudiced offshoots we see in the social media spotlights and image macros. Passion is a great fuel for positive change, but when not tempered properly it can easily become prejudice of its own (while still masquerading as being a sentiment of civility). Especially when it comes to people like us who have first hand experience of how poisonous part of gender roles and such can be. Separating out the wheat from the chaff is a pretty harsh task especially when all the charged situations are weaponised against entire swathes of the populace. It's why I try to debate things in these threads despite almost always being a waste of time. Sometimes the language used gives an illusion of being on the path to prejudice, when really it is just frustration and passion mixing into something only sounding similar to the garbage spouted by extremists. If you watch the back and forth 'gender wars' tennis between the respective bad eggs of each gender rights movement, you'll notice how their tactics and language actually follow similar patterns, and how the legit and chill members of each group then get tarred and feathered with the antics of their lesser counterparts. Separating our anxieties and misgivings from the subject at hand can be hard, but we have to try remain mindful. I mean, even assuming this rings at all true for you. I just get the impression that your worries about gender stuff have trickled over into this subject given the frustrated language used by the OP. If I'm off-mark, please take what I said with a grain of salt. ;P
Anyway, in this event, I don't see this as a matter of sex, or numbers, or sensitivities. Someone felt intimidated and harassed. The instigator was close enough to be hit by pepper spray and had escalated to insults/slurs. Given the language used, there is no real wiggle room to suggest it was innocent talk that got misinterpreted. As a grown adult capable of engaging strangers in that manner, they have to be ready to face the consequences when their intentional antagonism hits home. The only factor I can see mattering in this regard is if the antagonist was distinctly frail and there was no obvious or suspected weapon (for instance, a small child or an infirm elderly person).
If we disagree on that part, about when a target should be allowed to force a disengagement, that's fair enough I suppose, as that comes down to a matter of what we should allow as a society. I can't say that your position is without merit, but I would rather err on the side of those forced into the situation and with arguable reason to interpret a threat, than on the side of a grown adult who chose to create the situation and was in full control of its severity prior to the spraying.
Man, I had hoped to make a smaller post and with a more neutral tone, but I guess I can't help myself once I get typing up some spiel, eh? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate the reply, and the civility again. I don't disagree with much. I'm sure we could argue about much too, in a hopefully positive way. I don't fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you have to say. I'll leave it at that for now. A positive note i hope. I bear no one ill will, and don't condone harassment in any form to/from any group in particular.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, any subject where any shade of violence is involved is always a sour subject to be honest. Figuring out where the fine-print lays in amidst the turmoil is always a really dividing subject. Disregarding my exhausting reply sizes, it's been refreshing to actually get some adult discussion out of a thread like this!
Comment has been collapsed.
Honesty. Integrity. Responsibility. Those things i prize. It means facing hard truths sometimes, or letting go of other things. It means trying to recognize honesty in others, and good faith. I'm not religious. But i don't think your an evil person at all. I hope i have not implied that. I just often see an emphasis in terms of causes, on the negative. I think we'd do better by encouraging the better things. The better nature we all have.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't let them use passive-aggressive, if not soft-fascistic tactics to silence you. You are rationally, legally and factually right period. The vast majority of people agree with you but have been silence by the vocal alt-left minority we all know about...until things cracks up.
Comment has been collapsed.
"the vast majority".... eh. I'm gonna say the vast majority don't have much of an opinion either way.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's only what seems on the surface. I'd rather say most people don't have the spine to have an opinion but they don't think less of it nonetheless, and every time you discuss with people or look at actual surveys or stats, you'll see the vast majority are indeed against SJWs (which is not necessarily a good news if they fall for the opposite).
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it is not. Saying it is, is using incorrect words. It's dangerous to do so. Half the laws in the west are built with drawing the line at violence. If you make thoughts and perceptions and expressions violence, then your smack dab in the middle of thought police land.
Then disagreeing can become violence. Unpopular thought can be violence. It is a can of worms you don't want to open.
Verbal Abuse can still be wrong. It can still apply to and as harassment, but it isn't violence. Harassment is a degree of measurement. It's saying a thing over and over. Intimidation, being told no over an over. All these things are bad. But where is the line? If you call it violence, then the line is anywhere you want it, and you'll quickly find life is gonna suck for a great many people. If I walk up to someone on the street and say anything at all, it can be justified because i was being "Violent" by addressing them. Because you conflated unwanted speech, and persistent unwanted speech to that person by other parties as violence, and even if you didn't persist with speech against them, others did. And it's the "Victim's" perception, that is more important than the act itself.
If the individual did indeed follow the OP for a block and berated them the whole time. That's bad, and their may be cause for being in danger. I wonder though a scenario like this: when a Jehovas Witness knocks on my door on the weekend, is that violence? they came to my home! My only safe place, at my most vulnerable. They've been there before, and I refuse these religious zealots all the time. I'm afraid they'll take me away to a re-education center and impose their religion on me. I had to pepper spray them... No, you can't do that. My perception, and my level of fear do not trump fact. This is why we draw the line at violence frequently, a line determined by a very obvious and physical act. Which is why harassment and verbal abuse is a much more difficult thing to prove. Because it should be. You should be very afraid of the day words become violence. That's the day you can be accused of anything. Imagine if that existed in ages past. If you could be charged for assault for walking down the street as a black man and asking what time it is to a white woman. Oh wait... That's been done before hasn't it? It didn't work out too well then in america. when social hysteria looked down on a segment of the population, and was allowed to conflate presence and innocent interactions as attempted violence or sense of danger. After all, if courts good upstanding citizens believe that reasonable expectation that it would lead to violence, then surely that must be true, right? Do we really want to go back to representations like that? No, perception is shit. A thing must be provable and clear. Clear lines in the sand. You can not start to take the genie out of the bottle and change words into violence and expect to return it to the bottle without consequences.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to clarify, in law there is a difference between Assault and Battery.
Battery is physically harming someone. Assault is making someone afraid of physical harm.
Also, Violence is the use of, or the threat of the use of, force to injure or harm.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong, assault is a thing you do, not a thing you perceive. it's not about what you perceive being done to you, it is an act performed. Being afraid of physical harm is absolutely not assault in of itself. It is simply being afraid of physical harm. You may be afraid of assault walking home from the bus at night, it doesn't mean something was actually done to you, nor that anyone is ever there to perform it on you.
Assault and battery is when someone follows and threatens and actually performs physical harm. Simply following in of itself is not assault. Because you can be panicking in your brain, and i can be oblivious walking down the street behind you. How assault is differentiated is when the person behind you is intent on you, not on how you THINK they are intent on you. This is why there is that differentiation. Simply being at the same location as another, say a Club, might be perceived as assault. But is it? If you have the option to leave, then you are forced into nothing
Comment has been collapsed.
Depending on your country of origin, the definitions vary. What you perceive is not necessarily absolute. This is an international site, so keep that in mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a lawyer, I’m gonna say you’re wrong.there absolutely is a difference between assault (threatening harm) and battery (actually causing the harm).
An easy example is if someone tries to punch you, but fails to connect, its assault. If it connects, its assault and battery. If you’re hit from behind, its battery without assault.
However, I do agree with you that there is a reasonableness standard to assault. It’s not purely in the mind of the victim. Merely being afraid of someone standing in a dark alley is not assault. But if that person takes an action that reasonably makes you expect harm, its assault
Comment has been collapsed.
If someone catcalls you, it's a lack of respect and consideration and you have the right to ask them to stop (or to go to hell 😀).
If someone insists when you've made clear that person's annoying you, or if you're being followed on the street, it's harassment and you have the right to defend yourself, 'cause you don't know if the situation could get worse and you shouldn't risk it.
I'm a girl, I've been catcalled a million times and harassed or even touched by strangers on the streets several times (a lot more when I was younger, but it still happens now and then).
It's humiliating and makes you feel insecure and abused, it's not okay and it's not a minor problem, these behaviors shouldn't be allowed anywhere by now.
Comment has been collapsed.
some people miss the part that we are at risk when being harassed and if you wait till the last moment to react, things will probably be worse for you.
thanks for writing that 💖
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for creating this post!
I believe risk is what marks the difference between men and women being harassed. Every situation is different, but in most cases we know that if the guy who's harassing us takes a step forward we won't stand a chance against him and that scares the hell out of us. Guys harassed by girls can feel as annoyed and humiliated as us, but will rarely sense they're in danger.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm gonna posit that slightly different.
Women are more aware of potential danger, whereas guys tend to be oblivious to all but the most obvious danger
Comment has been collapsed.
🌟 Giveaways (moved to top for convenient leeching 😁):
If you want to share giveaways, please use this template:
copy everything inside the ` (even the opening/closing `grave accents`), edit and and paste it in your reply
Please use the format provided above! It's easier for me to copy-paste multiple giveaways in this thread. 🐤
It will take me a few days to update the list. To avoid having your giveaway not "showcased" set its duration to more than 5 days (unless you don't care, it's up to you).
Because I'm tired of getting catcalled and watching others in the street receive the same treatment, I decided to share some information with everyone in SG hoping that they can stop doing it and/or talk to their friends to make them reconsider their behavior.
Street harassment is unwanted and unwelcomed public attention, most often directed at women, which is demeaning and damaging. It’s not a private matter but one that should concern everyone.
If you have trouble empathising with strangers, then think about your mother, sister, or girlfriend. Would you enjoy watching people catcalling and telling them nasty things? How do you think they would feel about it?
On an average day I go out twice and I get at least one guaranteed catcall. On weekends or when I go out, for example to a club, it gets worse because groups of people feel more empowered to do so.
A few months ago I was walking with a friend and one guy said things and started to follow us. After a while it ended with me turning around and pepper-spraying his face, then running away in case he could fight back. This is the kind of violence it generates.
We had a rough rest of the day and were shaken up. I didn't enjoy doing that at all, but he had to be stopped. I also like to think the guy didn't enjoy it either.
So in the end, what did he achieve? Nothing.
Edit
OK, I'm gonna clear this up since some people like to assume things just to blame me for defending myself.
For the backward people, this was in june when I wasn't wearing "provocative shorts and t-shirts" clothes. These are the "nice compliments" I got amongst others i don't even want to repeat here and/or I want to forget:
hey girl nice butt
does your friend wanna F with me too?
hey reply bitch
come here lesbos!
GONNA EAT YOUR ASS
Walked one block with that guy which was 1 meter away from us. He wasn't shouting from the other side of the street, he wasn't half a block away, he wasn't sitting in the sidewalk. He was right behind us.
He got warned to leave us alone during the whole 1-block fast-paced walk. I didn't stop to "discuss" because I'm not a 1.9 meters 120kg guy, so I'm not putting my friend and I at risk at 8:30pm in the street.
You read the "You're not alone" thread?
Well, most of the stuff that I shared about me is linked directly to an experience related to this, but I wasn't walking with a friend and there were two guys instead of one following me. You can guess what happened next since I wasn't able to defend myself.
But of course, street harassment is harmless and nothing else can go wrong, nor it can trigger unhappy memories from past experiences.
Think a bit before judging others so quickly assuming they overreact when they feel in danger.~
I know I probably won't convince anyone catcalling to stop by posting this (it doesn't hurt to try), but if your friends or co-workers do it, you can persuade or talk to them and see if they get it. There's nothing worse than being in a group of friends and allowing them to act like idiots.
It's disgusting and demeaning, stop it. You're hurting people with your actions and makes you look like a fool.
❤️️ FAQ, in case you're gonna post one of these comments I get all the time.
- But some women like to be catcalled!
Yes, there's also men that like to get hit in the face with a hammer. So using the same logic, I should go out and hit all men with a hammer in hopes they enjoy it?
- Don't be so sensitive, ignore it.
No, it reaches a point it can't be ignored. It's not an isolated issue once per month or in certain situations so you can avoid it. It also affects me a lot depending on my mood, so when you feel like crap and you get catcalled, things get worse.
- So you want others to come to your rescue when some stranger catcalls you? That will end up with me getting in a fight!
I'm not asking people to fight for me, just them to stop doing it, spread the word, and discourage people in their group of friends from being disrespectful.
- If you don't want to get catcalled, dress appropriately!
1: Don't blame the victim.
2: I dress as I please. It's my body, not someone else's.
3: It doesn't matter if it's winter and I'm wearing a jacket, or summer with shorts and a t-shirt. Some people will be idiots anyway and say things.
- I bet you like it when a handsome guy catcalls you!
Irrelevant. I expect respect from everyone.
- What about men? They also get harassed!
I'm very aware guys also get harassed by both men and women, but this thread is about girls. Feel free to create another thread for that issue, and I will support it.
- So this is just a misandrist rant!
It's not. If you feel targeted by anything I said, then it's not because you're a man, it's because you actions ressemble what it's said here.
- Meh, it could be worse.
It could be worse, but it SHOULD be better. Also, normalizing this behavior makes it even more painful for victims.
- Women also catcall!
I never said they don't, but for each woman that catcalls me, i get 500 guys. So the issue at hand is the one I shared.
- This thread offends me!
That tells a lot about you. Log off, take your time, and think about it.
- This thread is inappropriate for SG, please close and delete it!
Go tell that to all other threads about awareness, politics, religion, sports, disasters, etc.
💙 Some info and articles:
Stop Street Harassment
Wikipedia definition
Documenting women's stories of street harassment
Why we need to take street harassment seriously
Dutch woman faces down her catcallers by posting selfies with them
💚 Videos:
Au bout de la rue (Court-métrage) - france
10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman - usa
Woman is filmed walking London's streets for secret documentary - uk
Male actor dresses as woman to experience sexual harassment - egypt
Sons React to Their Moms Getting Catcalled - usa
💛 And some pictures:
Comment has been collapsed.