This story is unavailable.

So what would you say if I told you that you were right now performing harassment on me? What would you say if I told you that when you walked down the street and looked at me, I felt that this was harassment?
Obviously in these cases a generalised societal standard steps in. The problem with what happens in these cases is that, A) some women do like it and some don’t, and B) that feminism has told women what type of way to feel about compliments as regards to physical attractiveness. If you can’t actually quantify what’s wrong with catcalling, then you’re just left with the effects of feminist propaganda.

I would ask you why you felt that way, and if it made you seriously uncomfortable, would quit. It’s simple. If someone is feeling harassed, you stop harassing them. Not a hard thing to do but apparently, very, very hard for some.

Here’s the thing — women have the power to choose what they believe in. Just because feminism sends a message does not mean women are “told” and “have” to follow. Those that don’t feel as if they’re being harassed, and unless you condone harassment, you need to realize that refusing to take their views seriously is a form of entitlement. They say “please don’t yell at me and whistle, etc.” and you respond with “it’s perfectly fine to stare, whistle, and think about fucking you.” That is pure entitlement to their body. Can’t you see that? I can quantify what’s wrong with it; I did so in my last post already.

It’s far-fetched to think that more than a few people are harassed daily, yes.

Good thing I never said “more than a few people” huh? Thanks for changing your story from “it doesn’t happen daily” to “not more than a few are harassed daily” lol. We’re making headway.

That page you’ve posted establishes nothing except the personal opinion of one guy.

Actually, the is a report issued by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Do you just believe your own imagination more than organizations dedicated to these issues or something? Because at this point, it seems you’re just disagreeing just to disagree. The report establishes reasons why cases are classified under false reporting, why there’s such a gap in the number, all using Department of Justice data. Your claim, that the rate of false accusation is high, has no ground to stand on compared to this government sponsored report. We agree that the exact rate is indeterminable — I am just trying to help you understand why that is, and why the cases deemed “false” are not always actually false. It is an important nuance to the issue of false reporting. If we don’t understand how and why reports are classified as false, we cannot truly understand false reporting.

Well, yes, because the methodology of these studies is a joke. Would you believe a scientific study that purported to find out if murderers really did commit their murders? Obviously not because if that study was any more accurate than the criminal justice system its methodology would already be in place.

Why, exactly, is the methodology of these studies a joke? You’re going to have to be specific here. They use data directly from the criminal justice system to quantify false reporting. The problem stems from a differences in the classification and definitions of false reports. The methodology encompasses all types of these classifications and definitions, so the methodology includes reports that are not necessarily false. These studies vary widely in number because of these differences between justice departments, but every single study completed, using data from the criminal justice system itself, shows the number to be low. (You would know this if you had read or successfully comprehended the False Reporting link.) Every single piece of actual evidence anyone has on the issue of false reporting shows the number to be low. Again, your claim that the rate is rather high, stems only from your imagination, and not from any sort of data in existence.

Only in the sense that our modern criminal justice system doesn’t seem to have the resources necessary to enact it.

…..and one of the reasons we don’t have the resources necessary to enact it is because we do not take sexual crimes seriously and divert the resources to other crimes — like misdemeanor marijuana possession (putting people away for decades for marijuana, meanwhile giving an 18-year-old convicted rapist, who raped two women, probation from drugs and alcohol), and various other “war on drugs” uses. You’ve described the entire problem — we are not using our resources in a way that allows rape victims to use their Sixth Amendment Right, and that needs to change before we can start claiming that we actually care about rape victims in this country.

Then ditch the shit label known as feminism and start self-defining as an egalitarian! How long are you going to stand with some terrible-ass people advocating for terrible-ass things when you could just not do that?

I don’t see life as black and white. I label myself both feminism and egalitarian, because I support issues between both movements. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, because I simply don’t have to. I’ll keep standing with feminists as long as there are issues I agree with, because some issues are focused on specifically by feminism. One such issue I have been a part of recently has been the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights, which just passed The House unanimously. Feminism pushed this bill forward, and this bill is going to change how the U.S. justice system treats rape victims. There are always going to be things I disagree with within any movement, and that’s just life. As long as I support some issues within feminism, I will label myself feminist, regardless of the terrible-ass people that attack me for simply labeling myself as such.

How can the majority of a culture decry an act in such an extreme way, yet…still have values and practices involved with such an act?

You’ve identified the dichotomy that exists perfectly here. We can decry it all we want, but until we change our values and practices, this gap will exist. Actions speak louder than words.

We take rape seriously. Our police may not do so as much as the average citizen, but they still do take it seriously. And victims are only shamed when they go public if they aren’t necessarily victims — a good reason, by the way, to not automatically term an accuser a “victim”. They are, by default, an accuser, but they are not necessarily a victim.

“We take rape seriously. I mean, our police force and justice system doesn’t, and they’re the ones who actually affect the victims and laws surrounding this, but hey, at least everyone else says they do!” It doesn’t matter how much we say we don’t like rape — as long as our justice system is allowing serial rapists to walk free in mass numbers due to not processing the evidence, it is not taken seriously enough to actually help the victims get justice and get rapists off the streets. The woman raped in the Brock Turner case was shamed, and she was most certainly a victim. There are many, many victims who are shamed, even after their rapist has been convicted. This is simply an unavoidable fact, and a large part of why victims don’t come forward.

It’s not so much that you can’t do math, but when you base something off of a criterion like “cities” instead of, say, “population”, you come off as someone who may well know formulas but doesn’t understand how to interpret statistics in a logical way. And yes, that was a bit of a typo; the population of Detroit is indeed 688,701, and that is the value I used to make my calculation. You could’ve just added up 792,727 to 688,701 and multiplied it by 15499, really just saved yourself a whole paragraph, but I’m sure I’ve already gotten under your skin enough with the math bit so we’ll leave it there.

Luckily, I do know how to interpret statistics in a logical way, considering I’m an economist, and that’s literally my career. It was meant to be eye opening, not accurate. Okay then, I’ve added 792,727 to 688,701, and multiplied it by 15,499, equaling 2,296,0652,572. Again, what are you trying to prove with this math? It makes zero sense and you’ve still failed to show your calculation.

I think that 1 in 20,000 serial rapists is a problem, but one that will likely continue to exist one way or another. More importantly, it’s not a huge problem — 1 in 20,000 is really, really low.

Where, exactly, did you get 1 in 20,000? Show me your full calculations and where you got your data on the number of identified serial rapists in the U.S. to make the calculation, because you seriously seem to just be making up numbers.

Given that it’s impossible by definition to prove a negative, why don’t you just point out one that wasn’t?

No, you made the claim, you get to back up your claim with evidence. You need to do the work here, even if that means YOU find one that wasn’t. I’m not going to do the work for you so you can make irrational claims and then sit back lazily. Until you prove what you brought up to be true, it has no merit. To refuse to back up your own claim is pure laziness, and you’re not exactly “engaging” well in the discussion if you choose this route.

The sex offender list is almost unbelievably punitive for no adequately explored reason beyond “for the childrens”. I don’t know that anyone deserves to be on that list.

Oh yeah, why would people want to know if a convicted violent rapist or pedophile is living next door to them? The list was created to establish a national database that tracks the location and movements of each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, or is a sexually violent predator. Recidivism rates for rapists is high. It’s absolutely ridiculous that you “don’t know that anyone deserves to be on that list.“ From everything you’ve said during our conversation, it’s obvious that you don’t take sex crimes seriously.

No, feminism tells girls that they should get blackout drunk and anyone who says otherwise is victim-blaming and so forth. This is hardly deniable — women already have the right to behave this way and feminism isn’t defending that, it’s just defending their right to do so and then later complain if something goes wrong. Men can have bad things happen to them as well if they get blackout drunk, but the more salient point here is that women rape men in different ways. Women and men do in fact have to fear different things; that is reality, and no amount of feminist activism or “teach men not to rape” will change that.

Yes, I will always defend a victim’s “right to complain if something goes wrong” because I believe rape is wrong and is worth “complaining” about. You’ve just proven, again, that you don’t take rape seriously.

So this falls under a very interesting idea, namely that women and men have a fear gap, where men even if they have more to fear are far less scared (not that they have more to fear in this case, but women are still disproportionately scared). And it really just exposes the issues with a lot of equalitarianism and feminism, because how do you deal with an issue like a disproportionate fear gap? If you treat both sides 50–50 one will be more scared than the other, if you protect women it’s unfair. In this case it’s also apparently a taught fear. As for physical defense, if you’re really drunk not sure if strength helps too much but I suppose there are some instances where that could be the case.

How do you deal with a disproportionate fear gap? Well, you know, a good first step is to actually process evidence in rape kits so that the fear gap isn’t fueled by the fact that the justice system does very little to help. That is a big part of this fear — knowing that if something goes wrong, there’s a good chance nothing will be done and nobody will believe you.

Thank you for the link on the date rape drugs. Unfortunately, your link is a UK article, talking about the UK and Australia. We have been talking about the U.S., so if you have another link that’s actually relevant, please post it.

Sorry, let’s bring it back: everyone agrees on consent except people who have been infected with the ludicrous notion of affirmative consent.
Affirmative consent is the radical notion that one party, almost always a man, should assume the entire burden of determining the other party’s feelings, almost always a woman. Instead of, say, the woman in the situation making her feelings clear if she feels that she is being raped, it is on the man to tell her to make her feelings clear. The question becomes:why? If someone is not being threatened or is not intoxicated, then they should be able to say something if they feel that they are being raped. In fact, it’s ludicrous to think that they won’t. So it’s not as though any genuine rapes are now being prosecuted. Instead, you are criminalizing some arguably sleazy behaviors, as well as regular average joes who don’t want to ask for consent every 5 minutes. You’re also attempting to paint what one partner does to maintain the relationship, as a violent and brutal act.
Consent is as follows: If you don’t like what’s going on and want to stop, say so. Your partner is not a mind-reader and it is not his job to become one. You are responsible for giving him the information he needs to make his decisions.

Thank you for changing your story here too. I do appreciate the headway we’ve made in taking your “all or nothing” type claims to a more appropriate level. As soon as you start saying “everyone, no one has ever, never, always,” etc., you are pretty much guaranteeing that you are wrong. Individual human behavior doesn’t fit into these terms.

Lol, affirmative consent is the radical notion that we should take just a second to ask a simple yes or no question. Apparently that is almost impossible for some people to do, as easy as it is! Heaven forbid we have to take a second out of our lives to ensure we’re not actually raping someone. If someone wants to stop, some people think they shouldn’t be able to, just because they started. This is yet another way in which people disagree on consent. There are many shades of grey, made more complex when drugs and alcohol are involved. There’s not a one size fits all solution, but affirmative consent isn’t hurting anybody.

And I was talking about how you didn’t mention that Brock was on the sex offender list.

I didn’t need to — we both know he is. I mentioned that David Becker did not have to register, specifically, because I believe it’s wrong that he didn’t have to. Brock did of course, and it’s a small drop in the bucket due to the fact that he only got 3 months, with a personal body guard. He deserves to be on that list for life; he was barely punished in the first place. That small amount of justice is all his victim will get, and it’s ridiculous that you feel sorry for him for having to register as a convicted sex offender, because, you know, he’s a convicted sex offender. Something tells me you have a soft spot for convicted rapists. Poor little guy, it was only 20 minutes of action!

You just said you were a fucking econ major! Are you not used to people being treated as objects? Your breasts are hot commodities; mine are not. Deal with it!

When we’re talking about rape culture and sexual violence, this is not the time nor place to be labeling humans as commodities. When it comes to the workplace and measuring human output in terms of time and value, sure. Economics measures humans in terms of their output and productivity, not in terms of the value placed on their bodies and appearance. There is a big difference. In our current context, it is dehumanizing, objectifying, and not appropriate in the least bit. I hope you understand the difference, but something tells me you know very little about economics to not see this difference in the first place.

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate” — either by physical force or due to intoxication — at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

Thank you for the link — I found this fascinating. The wording of the survey when accumulating data is SO important, and this is something that many studies on sexual violence do not take into account. You’ve successfully showed me that rape is an even bigger problem than we tend to think, considering how many men fail to report, or are left out of these statistics due to wording and specifics. Rape culture is particularly hard on male victims because of the shame tied to it and the lack of understanding when it comes to how often it actually happens to them. Someday, I hope the issue refocuses to further include them. At least the Survivor’s Bill of Rights will help them out too!

At the end of the day, all this really seems to mean is that attention has an upside and a downside, and the downside can manifest as shame and maladaptive eating, the first if you’re not living up to how you want to be viewed and the second to change that. I’d love to be in a situation where my losing weight would get me a lot of positive attention for women, frankly.

So basically, you’d love to develop an eating disorder so that people would find you attractive? That makes me feel really, really bad for you. I sincerely hope you find a healthy version of the attention you crave.

“Please give me factual evidence to prove your claim that it’s “like 300 people at best.” You seem to think it’s okay that people are sold into slavery then?”
I think crime exists and you can never stomp all of it out.

I’ll ask again — please don’t deflect and give me factual evidence to prove your claim.

Then why are you still self-defining as a feminist when feminist organizations actively fight against these things? Just hop on over to being an egalitarian!

I’m actually involved in feminists organizations that actively fight FOR those things. Child custody and 50/50 parenting is tied to feminism in that we want men to hold more responsibility for their children, so that they can gain custody, and we want women to be free from the “then don’t have kids” argument when it comes to her career. Women shouldn’t have to choose between work and a family when men don’t have to. I’m sorry, but your outside view of the feminist movement is wildly inaccurate. I know many feminists who care very much about these issues. There are organizations that don’t, but I am very selective in who I support and who I work with, so that their values align with my own.

But the problem is that it’s not an issue for guys. We don’t care. Feminism just finds new issues for women so that it can continually empower itself, even though these things are really non-issues.

It doesn’t matter if guys care —there are women who do, and their voices are just as relevant. In fact, many guys do care; just because you don’t doesn’t mean you get to speak for the entire male gender lol. Voting wasn’t an issue for guys either, yet voting rights is an important element to this country, and something women didn’t have for many years. You may see them as non-issues, but some of which you see as non-issues are, in fact, real issues. Many men saw voting rights for women as a non-issue, funnily enough. For you, some of these issues are just theoretical; for some women, they’re reality. Your privilege is hindering an objective view of these issues, and I hope you come to terms with this.

quite, quite rarely. Besides, according to you this all puts you in danger, so doesn’t that just make it assault, rather than “street harassment”? You think guys never walk down the street and get attacked by dangerous dudes?

Please give me factual evidence that it is rare.

And those people are wrong. I want people to lighten the hell up about it. It’s perfectly cool, and if you perceive threat from it you really shouldn’t.

Here’s the thing — it doesn’t matter if you think they’re wrong, and you think they should “lighten the hell up about it.” It doesn’t matter if you think it’s perfectly cool and they shouldn’t perceive a threat from it. Other people don’t think it’s cool and do perceive a threat. It bothers them. It scares them. That’s an unavoidable fact. You are condoning harassment in the form of “oh just get over it. I think it’s fine, so it’s totally fine for everyone else.”

No, and this is the behavior you need to absolutely stop because it is the behavior of someone who is worthy of nothing more than dick sucking. Clearly I saw something in your screed apart from passion which caused me to make that comment, and so this comment you have made is putting words in my mouth.

What exactly did you see in my screed that caused you to make the comment? What exactly did you see, that reduces me to nothing more than someone meant for dick sucking? Last time I checked, reducing humans to nothing more than a sexual object isn’t okay, no matter what you “read.” Every single woman is worthy of more than dick sucking, and it is pure misogyny for you to think otherwise. If you don’t like the term being used, don’t make misogynistic comments, reducing a woman to a sexual object simply because she is giving you a coherent response you repeatedly demanded from others. You don’t agree with me? Fine. That’s normal. But that does NOT give you the go ahead to say this to me. That is NOT normal; that is something that comes from a sick mind. Furthermore, when put in context, you still don’t see his comment as wrong, which further confirms the sick mind. You are standing up for misogyny, and you seriously need to realize this before you proceed.

Honestly, feminism is the only lens with which you can express sexism in a societally approved way. Provide me with another if you will.

There is sexism within the movement, yes. People seem to be having trouble with both internalized sexism and projected, as if sexism + sexism = less sexism. For some people, they have swung too far in the other direction, which is detrimental in itself. Ads are another way that sexism is expressed constantly, as are “jokes.” There are many ways it is expressed that society doesn’t see as a problem, you just have to look for the nuances. It’s everywhere once you open your eyes to it.

uh, what
this is another behavior you need to toss in the trash. Though there’s an entirely different argument of primary sex characteristics and age being two important factors that don’t always line up how we’d like them to.

You are the one who claimed there is absolutely no problem with any of it, even after I mentioned pedophilia. Not sure what you’re trying to argue here, other than your support for pedophilia.

About feminism, yes. Seriously, did you actually forget what we were talking about?

You asked me to refute your claim that women were respected and equal — you did not ask me to speak about the feminist movement or other feminists in general. We were talking about some issues within feminism, not feminism itself. Two entirely different things, but thank you for refraining from being rude and bringing straw feminists into your most recent reply. The conversation was a lot more engaging because of it, and I appreciate that!

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.