Sexual Harassment Video: What Does It Say About Us?

[ChrisL]

Now, if you were being followed or actually truly harassed, then you might have a complaint, but this is just a bunch of bull crap. Words certainly don't make ME feel like a victim.

Have I said it made the woman a victim? No I did not.

You're right. It's only a small percentage of men who do this, but there is a LOT more of it today than there was when I the age of the woman in the video. My 24 year daughter tells me that the attention is relentless when she is out in public by herself. And she's sick of it. She would like to be able to walk down the street without men making comments and attempting to approach her.

What I find surprising is that anyone is defending the practice of catcalling at all.

This is such bull. No one is defending cat calling. We are saying that it is NOT harassment. Obviously you don't know what harassment is and have never really been harassed by a person before. The stuff on this video is MILD and would not be considered "harassment" by any court of law, silly.

 

[ChrisL]

Speaking to a person on the street and giving them a compliment (which all lies in your perspective and is completely subjective, I suppose), is NOT against the law nor should it be considered "harassing" a person. Just because a small minority of people (there was not much there for supposed 10 HOURS of footage, and nothing really terribly awful either), might be rude and assuming, does not mean that our society in general has a problem with this kind of thing. IF you go to the nice parts of the city, you will not get NEARLY that much attention, even a truly good looking woman because they are EVERYWHERE. When a half-way decent looking woman is wandering around alone in the seedy sections of the city where the homeless, street people and street vendors tend to gather, then this is what happens. These kinds of people aren't going to stop behaving in this manner because some woman made a stupid video about it!!! It's ridiculous IMO!

 

[Theowl32]

I am telling you, these women (especially this one and the one in the video) are showing their prejudices.

It is not what is being said, but who is saying it. That simple. You think any of these women (let us assume for one moment that they are not man hating lesbians) would complain if it was Brad Pitt that was giving them catcalls?

It is not WHAT is being said, but WHO is saying it to them. It really is that simple.

That's always the comeback when a woman calls out a man for bad behavior: You must be a man-hating lesbian. If a woman is tired of being treated like a piece of meat when she goes about her daily business, she must be a manhating lesbian. You can always tell when someone has no response. They resort to insulting the poster.

And quite frankly, if Brad Pitt was doing the catcalling, I'd be very disappointed in him. Aside from the fact that he's married, I thought better of him than that.

Whether or not he is married, is not the point. I am a man hating lesbian? WTF? Ok, I will be called a lesbian. I guess.

I am insulting you by pointing that catcalls are compliments? You can deny all you want that you would NOT be greatly offended if a man that LOOKED LIKES BRAD PITT gave a catcall to you, but WE ALL KNOW DIFFERENT.

All you have done is point out that it is not WHAT THE MEN are saying, but WHO THE MEN ARE that are saying it. Catcalls are nothing. Tame.

Your delicate sensibilities and intolerance for something that is bye and large pretty natural IS THE PROBLEM.

Now, you are going to do the predictable thing and claim I am saying a man being rude to a woman is acceptable. No, I am saying most of the catcalls in the video were tame as hell and NOT RUDE or insulting.

You want me to get insulting? You want to me let you know what real insults are? Let me know. In the mean time lighten up, and stop being such.....<you know what..>

Apparently you lack the ability to understand grammar and syntax. You called me a man-hating lesbian because I dared to call out men for their bad behavior. That seems to be your only comeback - to insult me.

Catcalls are tame, but that doesn't mean they aren't rude and that women should have to accept them. Nor are they "natural". They are a symptom of a society that has no respect for women, unless they are dressed in religious garb. My daughter tells me that not only does she get catcalls constantly when she goes out, but she is frequently groped on public transit - emphasis on frequently. I've been groped on public transit as well, when I was younger, but it was a very rare occurrence. These days, women cannot leave their drinks unattended in bars, because of the danger of having someone slip date-rape drugs into them.

At what point do we say "Stop", this escalation of disrespect and abuse of women. When we let the small things slide, they escalate.

If you truly believe, as you say that being rude to a woman is not acceptable, why are you defending catcalls? If, as you say, that catcalling is rude, then why defend it at all? All that is required for evil to flourish is for people of good conscience to do nothing. It's well past the time when decent men and women should stop telling women to suck it up and start saying that there is something seriously wrong with a society where women have to be on constant guard.

We have become a society that condones rape and violence against women. Because we continue to tell women that they're over-reacting.

Go blow it out of your ass.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now, if you were being followed or actually truly harassed, then you might have a complaint, but this is just a bunch of bull crap. Words certainly don't make ME feel like a victim.

Have I said it made the woman a victim? No I did not.

You're right. It's only a small percentage of men who do this, but there is a LOT more of it today than there was when I the age of the woman in the video. My 24 year daughter tells me that the attention is relentless when she is out in public by herself. And she's sick of it. She would like to be able to walk down the street without men making comments and attempting to approach her.

What I find surprising is that anyone is defending the practice of catcalling at all.

This is such bull. No one is defending cat calling. We are saying that it is NOT harassment. Obviously you don't know what harassment is and have never really been harassed by a person before. The stuff on this video is MILD and would not be considered "harassment" by any court of law, silly.

Exactly. This is the problem with the whole political correctness scene. An inappropriate, crude, or unkind remark made to or about a woman is blown completely out of proportion and is treated by the PC crowd as if it was attempted rape or sometime equally bad or worse. No distinction is made between people's opinions or relatively harmless reactions to something and actual assault, harassment, sexism, racism, or any other components that go into actually harming people.

And because they do not make that distinction, they actually weaken their position.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am telling you, these women (especially this one and the one in the video) are showing their prejudices.

It is not what is being said, but who is saying it. That simple. You think any of these women (let us assume for one moment that they are not man hating lesbians) would complain if it was Brad Pitt that was giving them catcalls?

It is not WHAT is being said, but WHO is saying it to them. It really is that simple.

That's always the comeback when a woman calls out a man for bad behavior:

What you call bad behavior is exactly the behavior which most women with mates have rewarded. In a good majority of couples the man and the woman were strangers at some point and it was usually the man who introduced himself to the woman.

The welcomed approaches are fine and the unwelcomed approaches are harassment and the only person who has the power to make this judgment is the woman. The approaches the woman at the park while they're both walking their dogs, the man approaches the woman as they exit their university classroom, the man approaches the woman at an art gallery, the man approaches the woman at a wedding reception, the man approaches the woman at a party, the man approaches the woman at the coffee shop, the man approaches the woman on the street. The approach is the same, it's the woman's judgement which decides if he is harassing or welcomed or pleasant.

 

[Dragonlady]

What you call bad behavior is exactly the behavior which most women with mates have rewarded. In a good majority of couples the man and the woman were strangers at some point and it was usually the man who introduced himself to the woman. a

The welcomed approaches are fine and the unwelcomed approaches are harassment and the only person who has the power to make this judgment is the woman. The approaches the woman at the park while they're both walking their dogs, the man approaches the woman as they exit their university classroom, the man approaches the woman at an art gallery, the man approaches the woman at a wedding reception, the man approaches the woman at a party, the man approaches the woman at the coffee shop, the man approaches the woman on the street. The approach is the same, it's the woman's judgement which decides if he is harassing or welcomed or pleasant.

Context is everything. The approaches you have used are people in social settings where there are shared interests, shared friends, and the women are with other people who they know and trust. I know of no one who met their mate because he was a stranger who yelled out at them on the street.

Yes people have to meet somehow. But you meet people through shared interests, mutual friends, through school, social settings, because you bump into them at local shops you frequent. The only women who welcome guys calling out to them on the street, are hookers.

So again, why are you defending behavior that women have said offends them and is rude?

 

[Rikurzhen]

What you call bad behavior is exactly the behavior which most women with mates have rewarded. In a good majority of couples the man and the woman were strangers at some point and it was usually the man who introduced himself to the woman. a

The welcomed approaches are fine and the unwelcomed approaches are harassment and the only person who has the power to make this judgment is the woman. The approaches the woman at the park while they're both walking their dogs, the man approaches the woman as they exit their university classroom, the man approaches the woman at an art gallery, the man approaches the woman at a wedding reception, the man approaches the woman at a party, the man approaches the woman at the coffee shop, the man approaches the woman on the street. The approach is the same, it's the woman's judgement which decides if he is harassing or welcomed or pleasant.

Context is everything. The approaches you have used are people in social settings where there are shared interests, shared friends, and the women are with other people who they know and trust. I know of no one who met their mate because he was a stranger who yelled out at them on the street.

This mode of thinking that you employ is shared by many people and it's a flawed way of thinking, especially in issues dealing with public policy. The flaw is that most of the world is not like you.

Back when welfare for single mothers was being tossed around as an idea plenty of women favored it and they pooh-poohed the argument that such welfare would incentivize women into having children because they thought "I would never have a baby just to collect welfare payments and none of my other middle-class friends would either" and yet plenty of women did have babies just to collect/ increase their welfare benefits.






Picking Up Women in a Lamborghini Gold Digger Prank Picking Up Girls - Picking Up Women in Public - YouTube

 

[Dragonlady]

This mode of thinking that you employ is shared by many people and it's a flawed way of thinking, especially in issues dealing with public policy. The flaw is that most of the world is not like you.

Back when welfare for single mothers was being tossed around as an idea plenty of women favored it and they pooh-poohed the argument that such welfare would incentivize women into having children because they thought "I would never have a baby just to collect welfare payments and none of my other middle-class friends would either" and yet plenty of women did have babies just to collect/ increase their welfare benefits.

First off, we're not talking about public policy. We're talking about good manners and treating people with respect. I have noted from your past posts that treating women with respect seems to be a problem for you.

Secondly, when you say that "most of the world is not like you", who do you mean? Most of the men here agree that catcalling is rude, but they think it harmless. Every young attractive woman I know HATES it. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that women enjoy and respond to such behavior.

Last but certainly not least, your assertion that women have babies just to increase their welfare, is an urban myth which has been widely debunked. Women on welfare have, on average, fewer children than average:

Study Finds Women on Welfare Have Fewer Children Than Others - Los Angeles Times

You sir, seem to have limited knowledge about women. Perhaps if you actually listened to women and their concerns, instead of posting all sorts of negative things about women on this forum, about how women act so entitled and what bitches they are, you wouldn't have so much trouble getting a woman to go out with you.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Last but certainly not least, your assertion that women have babies just to increase their welfare, is an urban myth which has been widely debunked. Women on welfare have, on average, fewer children than average:

Study Finds Women on Welfare Have Fewer Children Than Others - Los Angeles Times

You sir, seem to have limited knowledge about women. Perhaps if you actually listened to women and their concerns, instead of posting all sorts of negative things about women on this forum, about how women act so entitled and what bitches they are, you wouldn't have so much trouble getting a woman to go out with you.

That's freaking hilarious. That's no debunking. What you need to do is look at the rate of single motherhood in 1930 and in the present and see how welfare has changed the calculation on being a single mother. Further, did you not read your article, for this statement applies directly to my point:

Rank cautioned that his data does not address the question of whether public assistance programs encourage women who do not have children, particularly teen-age women, to start having them to collect benefits.
​

Middle class women would never be tempted to have a child just to collect a small welfare payment so they pooh-poohed the suggestion that rewarding women for having children out of wedlock would create incentives for other women to have children in order to collect such benefits. Just because these women wouldn't do that doesn't imply that other women wouldn't.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's freaking hilarious. That's no debunking. What you need to do is look at the rate of single motherhood in 1930 and in the present and see how welfare has changed the calculation on being a single mother. Further, did you not read your article, for this statement applies directly to my point:

Rank cautioned that his data does not address the question of whether public assistance programs encourage women who do not have children, particularly teen-age women, to start having them to collect benefits.
​

Middle class women would never be tempted to have a child just to collect a small welfare payment so they pooh-poohed the suggestion that rewarding women for having children out of wedlock would create incentives for other women to have children in order to collect such benefits. Just because these women wouldn't do that doesn't imply that other women wouldn't.

Welfare had nothing to do with women keeping children born out of wedlock. Even when I was growing up and women received "mother's allowance" as it was then called, but this only helped women whose husbands had abandoned their families, or who had died. Single women who became pregnant left town, or hid in their homes until the baby was born and then put it up for adoption. Having a child out of wedlock was a shameful thing and if you were pregnant and unmarried, you either married the father and quickly, before you "showed", or you gave the child up for adoption.

Some families raised the children born to unwed daughters, but the child was raised to believe his or her grandparents were their parents, and that their mother was their sister. Welfare had been in existence for nearly 40 years before women started keeping their babies without the benefit of marriage. And it was middle class women that first started saying that they wouldn't give up their babies. They had jobs, they were able to look after themselves and their children, and they would not be bullied into giving the child up for adoption.

I know of no one who had a baby so they could go on welfare, but I do know a lot of women who went back to school, and got an education because they wanted a decent life for themselves and their child and they couldn't do it on welfare or a minimum wage job.

I love how conservatives keep trying to re-write history to blame all of societies problems on social programs.

 

[ChrisL]

What you call bad behavior is exactly the behavior which most women with mates have rewarded. In a good majority of couples the man and the woman were strangers at some point and it was usually the man who introduced himself to the woman. a

The welcomed approaches are fine and the unwelcomed approaches are harassment and the only person who has the power to make this judgment is the woman. The approaches the woman at the park while they're both walking their dogs, the man approaches the woman as they exit their university classroom, the man approaches the woman at an art gallery, the man approaches the woman at a wedding reception, the man approaches the woman at a party, the man approaches the woman at the coffee shop, the man approaches the woman on the street. The approach is the same, it's the woman's judgement which decides if he is harassing or welcomed or pleasant.

Context is everything. The approaches you have used are people in social settings where there are shared interests, shared friends, and the women are with other people who they know and trust. I know of no one who met their mate because he was a stranger who yelled out at them on the street.

Yes people have to meet somehow. But you meet people through shared interests, mutual friends, through school, social settings, because you bump into them at local shops you frequent. The only women who welcome guys calling out to them on the street, are hookers.

So again, why are you defending behavior that women have said offends them and is rude?

I've had people say ruder things to me at clubs than anything that was shown on that video. MUCH ruder. I don't know what you or she are whining about.

 

[ninja007]

any decent looking woman with nice tits in a tight shirt will def. be called out- why? Because MEN are wired like that? We are very sexual/eye candy creatures. Women are worse, they just hide it better. Not only that- men do things women do not do and vice versa.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Welfare had nothing to do with women keeping children born out of wedlock. Even when I was growing up and women received "mother's allowance" as it was then called, but this only helped women whose husbands had abandoned their families, or who had died. Single women who became pregnant left town, or hid in their homes until the baby was born and then put it up for adoption. Having a child out of wedlock was a shameful thing and if you were pregnant and unmarried, you either married the father and quickly, before you "showed", or you gave the child up for adoption.

The UK:

Shameless Sinead Clarkson, 36, boasts of being on the dole since she was 16, claiming it is impossible to find work in her home town.

In a move that last night shocked MPs and others angry at Britain’s bloated benefits culture, the mother of three encouraged daughter Melissa, 19, to have a baby so she too can live off the taxpayer. Melissa is now six months pregnant.

“What planet is this woman on?” asked one outraged MP.

Sinead, who lives in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, and receives handouts of £1,200 a month, said: “The best thing for her would be to have a baby, and I told her this. I’m so pleased she’s now pregnant because it means she’ll get a house and more benefits.

“If she proves to be a good mother I’m going to encourage her to have more children so she can claim more benefits and have a better life. Being on benefits suits me. I don’t have the stress of working like some of my friends. I know people will her to have more children so she can claim more benefits and have a better life. Being on benefits suits me. I don’t have the stress of working like some of my friends.

“It’s the system’s fault that I can choose not to work. People decide to have babies so they can get benefits because this country allows it. It’s not our fault.”​

Welfare had been in existence for nearly 40 years before women started keeping their babies without the benefit of marriage. And it was middle class women that first started saying that they wouldn't give up their babies. They had jobs, they were able to look after themselves and their children, and they would not be bullied into giving the child up for adoption.

You clearly don't understand how culture changes. It takes quite a while for the unthinkable to become the thinkable. The welfare policy can be introduced and it won't affect an immediate change, just like your first game of blackjack won't immediately turn you into a gambling addict.

I know of no one who had a baby so they could go on welfare.

You crack me up with all of these "I don't know anyone . . " lines, even after I did you the favor of informing you that not everyone in the world thinks like you, that some people respond to incentives that you don't respond to.

 

[Dragonlady]

You found a story of one woman in the UK who had a baby to collect welfare. You do know that welfare in the UK is much, much higher than in the US don't you. Why don't you believe the studies and reports? Instead, you pop up with all these YouTube videos. You know people lie through their teeth on YouTube just to collect hits.

You need to get out into the real world and find out just how much money women with children on welfare in the US receive. It's not very much, especially compared to the cost of living.

Single Mother Statistics

This should tell you what life is like for single mothers. Boy that sounds like fun doesn't it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You found a story of one woman in the UK who had a baby to collect welfare. You do know that welfare in the UK is much, much higher than in the US don't you.

So now you're arguing that human nature changes depending on which country one lives in? What you're arguing is that you personally find it more plausible, by your standards, that a woman, much like yourself, would entertain the thought.

Your entire thinking process here is best mirrored by the old story of a wealthy gentleman asking a woman if she would sleep with him for $1 million, to which she responded that she would. Next he offered her $100 and she exclaimed "What do you think I am?" to which he responded "We know what you are, we're just negotiating the price."

Now because you have such difficulty in understanding what you read, let me make clear here that I'm not calling you a prostitute. What I'm pointing out is that all people do not respond identically to a fixed incentive. You can't conceive of having a baby in order to qualify for welfare. Then you "backed up" your position by talking about the women you know - "I know of no one who had a baby so they could go on welfare." Well, that mother and daughter in the UK showed you, didn't they.

Why don't you believe the studies and reports?

What studies and reports? You mean the reference that you cited, that reference? The one which included this proviso:

Rank cautioned that his data does not address the question of whether public assistance programs encourage women who do not have children, particularly teen-age women, to start having them to collect benefits.​

You need to get out into the real world and find out just how much money women with children on welfare in the US receive. It's not very much, especially compared to the cost of living.

It should be clear by now, with my repeated suggestions to you that not all people think like middle class Canadian mothers, that I've seen more of the real world than you have. Women leading dead-end lives can see welfare as a pretty attractive route and having a kid puts them on the ladder. You wanted studies and reports? Here's one from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare:

This should tell you what life is like for single mothers. Boy that sounds like fun doesn't it.

Everyone doesn't live a sheltered middle class life like you. For a woman with the right combination of personal traits, laziness, and life circumstances, a drop-out living in a poor city, the incentives might just be enough.

 

[Theowl32]

That's freaking hilarious. That's no debunking. What you need to do is look at the rate of single motherhood in 1930 and in the present and see how welfare has changed the calculation on being a single mother. Further, did you not read your article, for this statement applies directly to my point:

Rank cautioned that his data does not address the question of whether public assistance programs encourage women who do not have children, particularly teen-age women, to start having them to collect benefits.
​

Middle class women would never be tempted to have a child just to collect a small welfare payment so they pooh-poohed the suggestion that rewarding women for having children out of wedlock would create incentives for other women to have children in order to collect such benefits. Just because these women wouldn't do that doesn't imply that other women wouldn't.

Welfare had nothing to do with women keeping children born out of wedlock. Even when I was growing up and women received "mother's allowance" as it was then called, but this only helped women whose husbands had abandoned their families, or who had died. Single women who became pregnant left town, or hid in their homes until the baby was born and then put it up for adoption. Having a child out of wedlock was a shameful thing and if you were pregnant and unmarried, you either married the father and quickly, before you "showed", or you gave the child up for adoption.

Some families raised the children born to unwed daughters, but the child was raised to believe his or her grandparents were their parents, and that their mother was their sister. Welfare had been in existence for nearly 40 years before women started keeping their babies without the benefit of marriage. And it was middle class women that first started saying that they wouldn't give up their babies. They had jobs, they were able to look after themselves and their children, and they would not be bullied into giving the child up for adoption.

I know of no one who had a baby so they could go on welfare, but I do know a lot of women who went back to school, and got an education because they wanted a decent life for themselves and their child and they couldn't do it on welfare or a minimum wage job.

I love how conservatives keep trying to re-write history to blame all of societies problems on social programs.

Told you she is a liberal. All of them are intolerant, hypocritical, racists.

Socialism and all the social programs are utter failures.

******* liberals. You can actually smell their stink through the computer!

 

[strollingbones]

most of it was general chattering....you could tell it was not a cc state when the guy followed her ......that was uncalled for

 

[Theowl32]

any decent looking woman with nice tits in a tight shirt will def. be called out- why? Because MEN are wired like that? We are very sexual/eye candy creatures. Women are worse, they just hide it better. Not only that- men do things women do not do and vice versa.

Not kidding. I was actually a debutante escort. I did the whole thing. Learned to waltz etc. If you know anything about debutantes, they are the "upper crust" of society. Young women making their "debut" dressed in white while we (the young men) wore black tuxedos.

Well, at the grand ball, the "good girls" were in the ladies room. They did not realize their voices were echoing into the hall way. Let me just say that was one of many big lessons that taught me that women are as vulgar and as nasty as any man.

They, however are a lot sneakier about it. Women probably have to be. The point is, the cat calls come from women too and I never took any offense if a woman whistled at me or pinched my hams. You kidding? No man would be offended. I mean come on!

Trust this. Women have egos tone thing we will never here from this hypocrite are the times she has been vulgar. I will bet she will even deny that she has ever been. That is the type of shit we are talking to.

 

[Theowl32]

any decent looking woman with nice tits in a tight shirt will def. be called out- why? Because MEN are wired like that? We are very sexual/eye candy creatures. Women are worse, they just hide it better. Not only that- men do things women do not do and vice versa.

Not kidding. I was actually a debutante escort. I did the whole thing. Learned to waltz etc. If you know anything about debutantes, they are the "upper crust" of society. Young women making their "debut" dressed in white while we (the young men) wore black tuxedos.

Well, at the grand ball, the "good girls" were in the ladies room. They did not realize their voices were echoing into the hall way. Let me just say that was one of many big lessons that taught me that women are as vulgar and as nasty as any man.

They, however are a lot sneakier about it. Women probably have to be. The point is, the cat calls come from women too and I never took any offense if a woman whistled at me or pinched my hams. You kidding? No man would be offended. I mean come on!

Trust this. Women have egos too. The thing we will never hear from this hypocrite are the times she has been vulgar. I will bet she will even deny that she has ever been. That is the type of shit we are talking to.

I cannot understand why the edit did not work. I tried editing and it would not do it.

 

[ninja007]

I agree. Women are very very sneaky about it. An old internet gf of mine clued me into women back in 2000ish. Not only was she a good psych. (dr.) but she was also bisexual, had been married to both genders. THE INFO that came out of her mouth. WOW.