Hollaback

Lily-Rose_3

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Hmm, do you find it preferable to live in a world where people have to pretend that they aren't bothered by comments or that they find them funny when in reality they feel intimidated and vulnerable? That they have to put on a brave face to avoid being called a "professional offence-taker"?

The point I'm trying to make is that the vast majority of women on this thread (and in other responses to the Hollaback campaign) say that they dislike catcalling and find it intimidating and offensive. Though I doubt you mean it like that, you're effectively saying they should shut up and take it to avoid making a (metaphorical) scene.

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I was trying to say, possibly badly, that when the majority of a group says that they find something offensive or unpleasant, then maybe that should be taken seriously and the behaviour should be unacceptable. Rather than suggesting that this majority are overreacting.

Completely agree with the above posts. It most certainly is not acceptable to cat call to women and letch over them, and try it on with them, like they're pieces of meat.

And to suggest that women who find it unacceptable and complain about it, are 'professional moaners' is grossly unfair, patronising, and insulting. I am fed up of people branding ANYone who complains about something that offends them, as a 'whingebag' or a part of the 'professionally offended' brigade.

How dare anyone belittle my feelings, and how hurt or upset I am about something?! No matter how small and petty and insignificant an issue may be to you; other people should be allowed to be upset, without being mocked and berated.

And although I used to quite like Stephen Fry, and think he was witty and intelligent; he is fast becoming an ignorant and offensive misogynist!

This paragraph that he supposedly said (that was quoted above,) is laughable to the extreme. I have never heard anything so stupid,and so breathtakingly WRONG!

"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!'

What an absolute load of RUBBISH. How dare he assume this about all straight men?! (and their women.) What a massively arrogant and ignorant oik he is!

j.e.j.

Lily-Rose wrote: »

How dare anyone belittle my feelings, and how hurt or upset I am about something?! No matter how small and petty and insignificant an issue may be to you; other people should be allowed to be upset, without being mocked and berated.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (?) but people ARE allowed to get upset and offended. Of course they are. But equally, people have a right to find someone's offence-taking funny or unnecessary. It's all human behaviour, isn't it. Things that offend one person may not offend someone else, and vice-versa, which is what we're discussing.

I think the Stephen Fry quote about women not enjoying sex is a bit odd, and, I presume, tongue-in-cheek. He has been known to say things about women, making fun of his own gay-ness (is that a word?) which could be misconstrued as misogyny by some people if taken out of context.

Lily-Rose_3

j.e.j. wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (?) but people ARE allowed to get upset and offended. Of course they are. But equally, people have a right to find someone's offence-taking funny or unnecessary. It's all human behaviour, isn't it. Things that offend one person may not offend someone else, and vice-versa, which is what we're discussing.

Maybe that is correct. (The bolded bit.) But you are talking about people simply finding it 'funny' that some get offended at something they class as trivial. I am talking about people mocking and taking the p***, and ridiculing people getting upset.

And THIS is what many people do. They don't just find it 'funny' or 'unnecessary.' They ARE rude and arrogant, and put down and belittle people who get upset with things they don't get upset with. Saying it's just 'human behaviour' is a cop out, and an excuse for what is rude and obnoxious behaviour.

Lily-Rose_3

thorsoak wrote: »

Posted in haste - don't want to abuse ToS

Well NOW I'm wondering what you said! :rotfl:

theoretica

A somewhat related article about the harassment of women a century ago - and the furor over how they reacted.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hatpin-peril-terrorized-men-who-couldnt-handle-20th-century-woman-180951219/?no-ist

j.e.j. wrote: »

Things that offend one person may not offend someone else, and vice-versa, which is what we're discussing.

I think there is, and should be, a consideration of the proportion of people who are offended. If say one person in a thousand gets offended by something (I am sure there is an example, but can't think of it) it is a different matter from if a high proportion of people dislike it. Then presumably there is a weighting for how strongly X people dislike the comments and how strongly Y people like recieving them. Followed perhaps by some relative assessment of the importance for not doing harm against giving people pleasure.

If we took a poll of women how many would say they like recieving comments in the street?

Lily-Rose_3

theoretica wrote: »

A somewhat related article about the harassment of women a century ago - and the furor over how they reacted.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hatpin-peril-terrorized-men-who-couldnt-handle-20th-century-woman-180951219/?no-ist

I think there is, and should be, a consideration of the proportion of people who are offended. If say one person in a thousand gets offended by something (I am sure there is an example, but can't think of it) it is a different matter from if a high proportion of people dislike it. Then presumably there is a weighting for how strongly X people dislike the comments and how strongly Y people like receiving them. Followed perhaps by some relative assessment of the importance for not doing harm against giving people pleasure.

If we took a poll of women how many would say they like receiving comments in the street?

Exactly! If 90% of women are offended/bothered/upset/angry at being hounded and cat-called in the street, and say they class it as abuse and harassment; that many women can't be wrong.

What's more, as I said, people are entitled to be offended about something, without being put down and ridiculed.

j.e.j.

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Well NOW I'm wondering what you said! :rotfl:

I didn't respond to it, but basically name-calling and saying very adult stuff like if this was facebook she'd block me/give my posts a thumbs down, or something along those lines.

Why she didn't just delete the whole post instead of just writing Posted in Haste remains a mystery..

thorsoak

j.e.j. wrote: »

I didn't respond to it, but basically name-calling and saying very adult stuff like if this was facebook she'd block me/give my posts a thumbs down, or something along those lines.

Why she didn't just delete the whole post instead of just writing Posted in Haste remains a mystery..

Not quite correct ..and I posted that as I was unable at that time to delete the whole thing. If I were to post my opinion of your opinions it would go completely against ToS. Not exactly namecalling!

theoretica

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Exactly! If 90% of women are offended/bothered/upset/angry at being hounded and cat-called in the street, and say they class it as abuse and harassment; that many women can't be wrong.

I would go further - if 10% of people are upset and 89% are not bothered either way and 1% like it the average is still negative.

j.e.j.

thorsoak wrote: »

Not quite correct ..and I posted that as I was unable at that time to delete the whole thing. If I were to post my opinion of your opinions it would go completely against ToS. Not exactly namecalling!

I think we both know what you wrote..

There's no reason why writing an opinion would 'go against ToS' unless it were abusive or unfriendly.

Anyway, it's gone now.