Sendraks wrote:
I've come into this discussion late, but I can see nothing about this women or her appearance that could be construed as intended to "manufacture harassment."

10 hours of a person walking around new York city and they are presenting mostly innocuous comments as harassment in a short YT presentation.

There was some harassment, no doubt, but 10 hours of footage and that is all they got? Lucky she (or anyone) wasn't mugged walking around New York City for ten hours.

It is a false presentation.

Maybe, but just as inclusion of false complaints makes their critique look weaker inclusion of spurious comments about her dress has a similar effect on yours.

Spearthrower wrote:
However, the style of the shirt in the link is clearly not for a fat person to wear - the model wearing it looks more than comfortable in it. It's certainly not sexually provocative attire.

They sell things to fat people by using models that will make the fat person think they will look like the model in the product.

You ever see fat people drinking diet coke in diet coke ads?

Thommo wrote:
Enjoy!

lol

Sendraks wrote:Dear me there is some weird stuff going on with that gentleman's abdomen in the second image.

The first one appears to have had some of his muscle definition applied with make-up as well. I find his pecs strangly compelling though.

To much obliquing, I think.

Am I the only one who wonders what went on in the rest of the ten hours we didn't see...?
I also wonder what would happen if a handsome muscly man walked down the street...
I mean, one of then instances is someone saying (off camera) "have a nice evening, darlin'". If that's sexual harassment, then I myself...sniff...am the victim of repeated harassment as the woman in the local post office repeatedly and in an unwanted way calls me (and every man actually) "darling", "sweetie", "honey", and other shameful terms. Not to mention I remember in Las Vegas some street vendor lady trying to hand out fliers for some show called me "sweetheart"...right in front of my wife!!

"Manufacture harassment"...good term.

Way back in the early nineties I remember reading an article by some noted feminist author who wanted to broaden the definition of "sexual harassment" to include almost any interaction between a man and a woman which wasn't initiated by the woman. the example she started the article with was a woman walking to work. She was wolf whistled at, then in the bus queue someone pinched her bum, then on the bus a man stood far too close to her, then as she entered the office some man complimented her on her new hairstyle. These were all "sexual" harassment.

Then again, some more radical feminists want the definition of "rape" expanded to include virtually anything as well, weakening and trivializing the actual meaning of what is a serious crime.

I'l say it...sometimes womens worst enemies are feminists... They trivialize what is actually a serious issue by "manufacturing harassment" and including trivial and flirtatious comments that are completely innocent.

Was there harassment in that vid? Yes, yes there was. The guy following her was creepy.

Did she include things as harassment that were just possibly people being polite? I'd say she did.

She ruined her own message, unless her message was, "Don't talk to women at all without permission."

johnbrandt wrote:Way back in the early nineties I remember reading an article by some noted feminist author who wanted to broaden the definition of "sexual harassment" to include almost any interaction between a man and a woman which wasn't initiated by the woman. the example she started the article with was a woman walking to work. She was wolf whistled at, then in the bus queue someone pinched her bum, then on the bus a man stood far too close to her, then as she entered the office some man complimented her on her new hairstyle. These were all "sexual" harassment.

I think the value of the video - such as it is - is to illustrate how the accumulation of minor incidents of unwanted attention, most of which do not objectively constitute harassment, can leave a person with a subjective impression of being harassed. Put another way, if a stranger's appearance is striking enough to make you want to push the bounds of propriety by attempting to kickstart a conversation with them out of the blue, you're probably not the first person to feel that way.

johnbrandt wrote:Then again, some more radical feminists want the definition of "rape" expanded to include virtually anything as well, weakening and trivializing the actual meaning of what is a serious crime.

I'l say it...sometimes womens worst enemies are feminists...

Here we fucking go again ...

I assume that you are talking about things like stare rape, rather than the acknowledgement that a person's unconsciousness does not constitute consent, or that someone can be raped by a person they previously had consensual sex with (like that's going to stop the shitstorm that's about to descend on this poor thread)?

johnbrandt wrote:
Way back in the early nineties I remember reading an article by some noted feminist author who wanted to broaden the definition of "sexual harassment" to include almost any interaction between a man and a woman which wasn't initiated by the woman. the example she started the article with was a woman walking to work. She was wolf whistled at, then in the bus queue someone pinched her bum, then on the bus a man stood far too close to her, then as she entered the office some man complimented her on her new hairstyle. These were all "sexual" harassment.

Those two underlined(and especially the former of the two) I consider definitely harassment. Why wouldn't it be? Keep your hands to yourself, unless it's clear that both of you are willing to go there.

babel wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
Way back in the early nineties I remember reading an article by some noted feminist author who wanted to broaden the definition of "sexual harassment" to include almost any interaction between a man and a woman which wasn't initiated by the woman. the example she started the article with was a woman walking to work. She was wolf whistled at, then in the bus queue someone pinched her bum, then on the bus a man stood far too close to her, then as she entered the office some man complimented her on her new hairstyle. These were all "sexual" harassment.

Those two underlined(and especially the former of the two) I consider definitely harassment. Why wouldn't it be? Keep your hands to yourself, unless it's clear that both of you are willing to go there.

I think JB's point was that the example of what any reasonable person would regard as harassment (technically assault) - the pinch - was being equated with activities that did not constitute harassment. If a woman actually experienced the first two on her trip to work, she may well experience a man merely standing close to her as too close and finally even a simple complement as part of a pattern.

Nicko wrote:

babel wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:
Way back in the early nineties I remember reading an article by some noted feminist author who wanted to broaden the definition of "sexual harassment" to include almost any interaction between a man and a woman which wasn't initiated by the woman. the example she started the article with was a woman walking to work. She was wolf whistled at, then in the bus queue someone pinched her bum, then on the bus a man stood far too close to her, then as she entered the office some man complimented her on her new hairstyle. These were all "sexual" harassment.

Those two underlined(and especially the former of the two) I consider definitely harassment. Why wouldn't it be? Keep your hands to yourself, unless it's clear that both of you are willing to go there.

I think JB's point was that the example of what any reasonable person would regard as harassment (technically assault) - the pinch - was being equated with activities that did not constitute harassment. If a woman actually experienced the first two on her trip to work, she may well experience a man standing close to her as too close and finally even a simple complement as part of a pattern.

Maybe, I don't think that was the point he was trying to make, but you could be right.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
However, the style of the shirt in the link is clearly not for a fat person to wear - the model wearing it looks more than comfortable in it. It's certainly not sexually provocative attire.

They sell things to fat people by using models that will make the fat person think they will look like the model in the product.

You ever see fat people drinking diet coke in diet coke ads?

Yes, but this doesn't really follow with your previous contention, does it?

johnbrandt wrote:Am I the only one who wonders what went on in the rest of the ten hours we didn't see...?

I expect a lot of walking, a break for lunch, some coffee, telephone calls from friends. Why, what did you have in mind?

johnbrandt wrote:I also wonder what would happen if a handsome muscly man walked down the street...

You don't seem able to finish your sentences...

If it didn't happen for ten hours straight it's not a big deal....?

johnbrandt wrote:Am I the only one who wonders what went on in the rest of the ten hours we didn't see...?

Apparently. Maybe she put on a jacket to cover all the sexy bits and all of it stopped?

I also wonder what would happen if a handsome muscly man walked down the street...
I mean, one of then instances is someone saying (off camera) "have a nice evening, darlin'". If that's sexual harassment, snip.

STREET harassment, there was no mention of sexual harassment in the video.

I'l say it...sometimes womens worst enemies are feminists... They trivialize what is actually a serious issue by "manufacturing harassment" and including trivial and flirtatious comments that are completely innocent.

Trees are blocking your view of the forest. The video establishes a pattern, unwanted and unnecessary interaction.

Consider if every verbal lure in that video was instead, someone asking for spare change?

"Dayum, you must have a quarter", "you don't wanna contribute?, I look to rich for you?"

Apparently the director is now being accused of racism because he didn't show enough harassment by "white men."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/living/wo ... ?hpt=hp_t4

NamelessFaceless wrote:Apparently the director is now being accused of racism because he didn't show enough harassment by "white men."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/living/wo ... ?hpt=hp_t4

It's a good point.

NuclMan wrote:

johnbrandt wrote:Am I the only one who wonders what went on in the rest of the ten hours we didn't see...?

Apparently. Maybe she put on a jacket to cover all the sexy bits and all of it stopped?

All of what? This thread was billed as "10 hours of harassment", what was shown was slightly less than two minutes of footage. Seeing as how most of that two minutes consisted of interactions that could not be objectively* defined as harassment, perhaps this thread would be better entitled, "Woman Wanders the Streets of New York for 10 Hours and Runs Into a Couple of Arseholes".

Wow.





* Again, the value of this video is an insight into this woman's subjective experience.

Rome Existed wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:Apparently the director is now being accused of racism because he didn't show enough harassment by "white men."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/living/wo ... ?hpt=hp_t4

It's a good point.

It's fucking hilarious is what it is.

NamelessFaceless wrote:Apparently the director is now being accused of racism because he didn't show enough harassment by "white men."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/living/wo ... ?hpt=hp_t4

I think this provides an example of just how ridiculous these kind of things can so easily become. See a+theism for parallels.