The unimportant news thread

[Brian]

So, one man harassed her, meaning he would get a violation if police were around.  That would be sufficient punishment in that type of case.  Full disclosure: I didn't watch the video, but the fact that you can point out one instance of possible second degree harassment tells me what I need to know.

Well, I'll be honest, I haven't watched it either, only read a couple articles. And I also saw a parody video.

(stuff)

So we do just disagree about whether legality is the central issue here. You're saying it can't be that big deal if nobody legislates it; I'll disagree because people can be irritating shitbags without violating laws. I consider the issue ethical: don't demean or insult or annoy random strangers. From what I have seen, the main plan of attack for the movement is to get men to call out or pressure other men from doing this. Like how, back in the day, if somebody told a really racist joke you were supposed to say "Hey, that's racist, don't do that," instead of laughing.

If these people are sexists with warped views of womens' agency, we probably can't change that. It would be nice if we could change their external behavior, though. If all that confused lonely boys did was post on classical music forums about how women are incomprehensible, that would be better than disrupting people's days.

Let me try to explain. Let's set aside the question of vulgarity or manners for a moment. Let's set aside the fact that cultural norms vary. Let's look at the tangible harm. Has anything happened except that she was spoken to without permission? In the video I don't see it. The death threats afterwards are a different matter. But the complaint is that she was spoken to without permission. Does that, Todd asks, really rise to the level where we must take action, enforce penalties, place new restrictions upon society? Clearly not.

"Spoken to without permission" makes it sound like she's Justin Bieber, refusing to talk to anyone outside of her entourage. But then, you explicitly removed the content of the speech from consideration by setting it aside, neatly sidestepping any ethical issue.

Granted, I haven't seen the video and granted, this was a stunt.

[Todd]

I'll disagree because people can be irritating shitbags without violating laws.

True.  And ultimately, there's nothing wrong with that, provided said irritating shitbags don't break the law.  The law establishes, and enforces, the ultimate standards of behavior.  Arbitrary, capricious, and eminently changeable situational ethics don't mean much.

[Brian]

True.  And ultimately, there's nothing wrong with that, provided said irritating shitbags don't break the law.  The law establishes, and enforces, the ultimate standards of behavior.  Arbitrary, capricious, and eminently changeable situational ethics don't mean much.

This could get philosophical fast. Don't you think the law is a great example of situational ethics? For example, here in Texas smoking marijuana has a moral component (it is "wrong"), while in Colorado there is no such moral issue. Same goes for prostitution and Nevada, or (kinda-sorta) heroin in Portugal. If we're using law as a moral baseline, the ethics of lighting up are based on where you are when you do so.

[Todd]

This could get philosophical fast. Don't you think the law is a great example of situational ethics? For example, here in Texas smoking marijuana has a moral component (it is "wrong"), while in Colorado there is no such moral issue. Same goes for prostitution and Nevada, or (kinda-sorta) heroin in Portugal. If we're using law as a moral baseline, the ethics of lighting up are based on where you are when you do so.

I was referring to legal restrictions on behavior, and punishment for behaviors that violate the law, not morality.  The two are not always aligned.  It is possible, for instance, to think that smoking marijuana is morally wrong, even if it is legal.

[ibanezmonster]

I can tell you what it is in Texas.

§ 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT.  (a) A person commits an
offense if the person:
      (1)  intentionally or knowingly:                                             
         (A)  causes the penetration of the anus or sexual
organ of another person by any means, without that person's
consent;
         (B)  causes the penetration of the mouth of
another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that
person's consent;  or
         (C)  causes the sexual organ of another person,
without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth,
anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;  or
               (2) [2 is the same as 1, but for cases involving children.]
Ugh. That's depressing, but it's also not surprising. These protozoa are all too happy to send death threats to any woman who speaks up in public. Don't like what a man says? Argue against him. Don't like what a woman says? Tweet her home address and threaten to rape/murder her.

That sounds like the same as rape to me.

Greg, do you play the blues these days (or forever in your life)? Isn't it suspective if you don't? I don't have that urge, but I think (at least) with melancholy about the best (not every) girls I have approached. I still like them much.

Or is approaching a girl equal to trying to rape a girl for you (as we are conditioned by others and society)? Maybe you're right in cases like us.

Regarding music I play Whitecaps and Anotherlove by Prince & 3rdeyegirl as regret and consolation and also "U Know", I particulary like this sentence: "When he gone, he know I'm gonna flaunt ya."

I read a comment that probably describes everything quite well. You never know who is going to be a rapist, so you have to be on guard all the time. Kinda like a child talking to strangers. Which might explain the intense fear of a man saying hi to them in public (unless they're Brad Pitt). There's always going to be a barrier up...

As for the death threats... they seem to be getting more common nowadays when it comes to internet news-related stuff. When Palmer Luckey, the guy who invented the Oculus Rift, sold the company to facebook earlier this year, he received death threats as well. Keyboard warriors. 

The idea of making it illegal to catcall could lead to who knows what... saying "fuck" in public can be offensive, especially if there is a kid nearby. Arrest them?

[Todd]

I believe in science!  Turns out my wife is something of a creationist.

[Henk]

That sounds like the same as rape to me.


I read a comment that probably describes everything quite well. You never know who is going to be a rapist, so you have to be on guard all the time. Kinda like a child talking to strangers. Which might explain the intense fear of a man saying hi to them in public (unless they're Brad Pitt). There's always going to be a barrier up...

As for the death threats... they seem to be getting more common nowadays when it comes to internet news-related stuff. When Palmer Luckey, the guy who invented the Oculus Rift, sold the company to facebook earlier this year, he received death threats as well. Keyboard warriors. 

The idea of making it illegal to catcall could lead to who knows what... saying "fuck" in public can be offensive, especially if there is a kid nearby. Arrest them?

Many men can say "hi" to unknown women, having a chat. Just in particular cases there's distrust, which could be, in our cases, completely dishonest. It's not by change that you come up with all these reflections.

[mc ukrneal]

I am really amazed by some of the comments to that video. As someone who has walked the streets of NY, I cannot understand them. First, there are comments ascribed to the woman and how she was rude/arrogant/etc. These are things you are interpretting - they are not facts. All she does is walk and never respond to the people around her. Second, I would never respond to someone who said anything to me like that in NY. Being nice is something dirtbags (I am not referring to anyone in the video) take advantage of. Even when someone needs directions, I am on guard. Personal safety has to come first. I mean, who knows who those people really are. Third, the guy who walks next to her for several minutes is creepy. He was trying to get into her head. Finally, if I was her, there are a number of times in the video where I would not feel safe - and I'm a guy.

<story deleted>

[Ken B]

I am really amazed by some of the comments to that video. As someone who has walked the streets of NY, I cannot understand them. First, there are comments ascribed to the woman and how she was rude/arrogant/etc. These are things you are interpretting - they are not facts. All she does is walk and never respond to the people around her. Second, I would never respond to someone who said anything to me like that in NY. Being nice is something dirtbags (I am not referring to anyone in the video) take advantage of. Even when someone needs directions, I am on guard. Personal safety has to come first. I mean, who knows who those people really are. Third, the guy who walks next to her for several minutes is creepy. He was trying to get into her head. Finally, if I was her, there are a number of times in the video where I would not feel safe - and I'm a guy.

Here's a real life situation. I will tell you what I did after you've had a chance to respond (if you like). You are in a foreign country and you are walking home. You are on a reasonably active side street in a residential district (with people of all ages) in small-medium sized city. In general, it is safe, though there are occassional drunks and bums near the bus stop. You speak the language reasonably well, but not perfectly and with an accent (that gives you away as being foreign). You are dressed more or less the same as locals, but if you open your mouth it gives you away as not local. It is evening and there are lights on as you walk home. You are about 25 yards/meters from the entrance of your apartment block (with coded entrance, as most are). A girl comes up to you hysterically crying. She says something you don't quite understand (but you understand she is saying something about what happened) and she asks you to walk her to her apartment building (as she says she is scared), which she says in just a few houses down (lets say 100-200 yards/meters), where it so happens a friend of yours lives (roughly). So you know the area quite well and have never had any issues after many months there. What do you do?

Neal, just to respond to one point. Not to respond is a response. and it clearly in some cases provoked further response. The point I am making is that there is more going on here than just a woman being spoken to. Her body language, silence, and gait, plus her presence in a black neighborhood, *presents an impression*. And I for one don't think it's out of line for some low status black guy to feel a "micro aggression" here from some white woman who ostentatiously ignores him. He may be wrong to react to it but I am not going to say he is wrong to feel it. Especially since it is true! She's trolling for a reaction, treating them in Kantian terms as means not ends.  She wants them to react thus, so she can feel vindicated and post a video. Her approach to them is disrespectful and condescending from the get-go.
Watch what happens when she nearly collides with one guy to see her non reaction as a reaction.

[mc ukrneal]

She's trolling for a reaction, treating them in Kantian terms as means not ends.  She wants them to react thus, so she can feel vindicated and post a video. Her approach to them is disrespectful and condescending from the get-go.
Watch what happens when she nearly collides with one guy to see her non reaction as a reaction.

Again, you are applying an interpretation. She's disrespectful because she ignores him? She's condescending because she just keeps going? That is just nonsense. Forget about black and white for a moment, why do the men get angry or say nasty-ish things when she keeps going and ignores their comments?

[Ken B]

Again, you are applying an interpretation. She's disrespectful because she ignores him? She's condescending because she just keeps going? That is just nonsense. Forget about black and white for a moment, why do the men get angry or say nasty-ish things when she keeps going and ignores their comments?

It's really odd Neal that you say I am interpreting, but don't seem to think you are.
But forget us. Would those men be interpreting?  They would. Everyone interprets when they interact and observe. None of us is vouchsafed the truth, we read and read into. And if they read or read into then that is part of the interaction. You seem to dismiss that.  You want to take her account  and interpretation straight up at face value, but what they felt and thought matters too.

[North Star]

Again, you are applying an interpretation. She's disrespectful because she ignores him? She's condescending because she just keeps going? That is just nonsense. Forget about black and white for a moment, why do the men get angry or say nasty-ish things when she keeps going and ignores their comments?

And are those who think saying 'good morning' is harassment not interpreting?
I have more important things to do than spending more time debating about a video that's under 3 minutes long with people (not Neal) who haven't actually seen it..

[mc ukrneal]

It's really odd Neal that you say I am interpreting, but don't seem to think you are.
But forget us. Would those men be interpreting?  They would. Everyone interprets when they interact and observe. None of us is vouchsafed the truth, we read and read into. And if they read or read into then that is part of the interaction. You seem to dismiss that.  You want to take her account  and interpretation straight up at face value, but what they felt and thought matters too.

I have interpreted nothing that she did. Show me where I have. Most of what I wrote was from my point of view (and I think I was clear about labeling that).

It's odd - I haven't told you what I think of what she did and the video, yet you seem to think I have.

[Brian]

Ken seems to have a Midwesterner's quaint belief that if anyone addresses you in public, you have to respond as graciously as a Minnesotan. No.

Also, Ken, your interpretation of ignoring people is strange. She "ostentatiously ignores" them. Is she supposed to politely ignore them? What is the clear, specific difference between ignoring somebody nicely and ignoring somebody rudely?

There is an implication by some people here that a girl walking down the street ignoring people is committing a wrong. How is that?

[Ken B]

I have interpreted nothing that she did. Show me where I have.

She did? Just she? She's the only one here? Your entire argument is that nothing she did could be seen by those men as disrespectful. Because I say it could be and you deny it. And that is an interpretation of what the men did and why.

Ken B: Look at it from the point of view of one of the men who ...
Neal: Nothing she did can be read as ...

Aside from that, of course you are interpreting about her too. Just as everyone is.


You really think You are not interpreting?

[Ken B]

What is the clear, specific difference between ignoring somebody nicely and ignoring somebody rudely?

Race for one. Tell me blacks, especially low status unemployed young black men, are crazy to feel routinely slighted. Tell me that they can never pick up on cues people give off? Tell me it's impossible she gave off cues that the men could read, even if incorrectly.

[Ken B]

And are those who think saying 'good morning' is harassment not interpreting?

Exactly. 

[mc ukrneal]

She did? Just she? She's the only one here? Your entire argument is that nothing she did could be seen by those men as disrespectful. Because I say it could be and you deny it. And that is an interpretation of what the men did and why.

Ken B: Look at it from the point of view of one of the men who ...
Neal: Nothing she did can be read as ...

Aside from that, of course you are interpreting about her too. Just as everyone is.


You really think You are not interpreting?

You are an interesting one. You created an argument for me that I never made. And then you misread/misunderstood/reinterpreted/misrepresented something else that I wrote. The only thing I have interpreted is the guy who walks next to her for several minutes. You seem to have created a story in your head, perhaps because I jumped in late and you thought I was agreeing with someone else.

My point was really quite simple. Assume for a moment you are right on her intent - it doesnt matter to my point. You have made her out to be the 'bad guy' when all she does is walk and not speak. That's all she does. You've created this story/fantasy that the way she walks (for 10 hours) is arrogant/rude/etc - How does one walk arrogantly for 10 hours anyway? I can't see how you jump to that conclusion.

[Ken B]

You are an interesting one. You created an argument for me that I never made. And then you misread/misunderstood/reinterpreted/misrepresented something else that I wrote. The only thing I have interpreted is the guy who walks next to her for several minutes. You seem to have created a story in your head, perhaps because I jumped in late and you thought I was agreeing with someone else.

My point was really quite simple. Assume for a moment you are right on her intent - it doesnt matter to my point. You have made her out to be the 'bad guy' when all she does is walk and not speak. That's all she does. You've created this story/fantasy that the way she walks (for 10 hours) is arrogant/rude/etc - How does one walk arrogantly for 10 hours anyway? I can't see how you jump to that conclusion.

I have not said she's the bad guy. I won't debate with you if your go-to tactic is that kind of thing.
I have said interpreting how the men react is not as simple as some would like to see it. I have explained why above. If you care, google how Joyce Carol Oates reacted.

But our specific point of comtention was your assertion I was interpreting whilst denying you were. We all are, and not just about her. (I hope and trust your interpretation is not Oates's. )

[Todd]

Rather than watch the video that has caused so much discussion, which was apparently created with the aid of a video marketing firm, I wanted to see what Hollaback! is all about.  From the website:


"Criminalizing verbal harassment and unwanted gestures is neither the final goal nor the ultimate solution to this problem and can, in fact, inadvertently work against the growth of an inclusive anti-harassment movement. The criminal justice system disproportionately targets and affects low-income communities and communities of color, as evidenced by policies such as New York City's Stop and Frisk program and other degrading forms of racial profiling. Our objective is to address and shift cultural and social dialogues and attitudes of patriarchy that purport street harassment as simply the price you pay for being a woman or being LGBTQ. It is not to re-victimize men already discriminated against by the system."


As I suspected, the patriarchy is to blame.