If the women has said no once and he is persists in harassing her for it because he thinks he has some god given right to it then its pretty horrible, dunno if id call it sexism though
The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.
There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?
Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.
This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.
Even more ridiculous from that article is this little gem.
Let’s be very clear – it is never a victim’s duty or responsibility to shout back. We won’t solve any kind of sexism by telling the people experiencing it to react in a certain way, we’ll stop it by preventing the perpetrators from doing it in the first place
The dilemma is that what one person considers to sexism or harassment is different from another. If we all actually behaved based on this premise, then we would conduct our lives not speaking or even looking at someone, unless we were conducting business with them. Even then the it would be risky. Labeling any interaction that is unwanted to be harassment, has unrealistic expectations.
She was probably walking across the road without looking on her phone or something lol.
Felt sorry for the "harassing guy" He might have been pretty shy, trying to talk to a girl he likes and acknowledges that some girls find it annoying so starts with (although not the best thing to say ) "I don't mean to harass you but..." just to be met with a blunt "Don't harass me then" no wonder he got annoyed. And TSR wonder why a lot of guys struggle to go up to girls they like.
"@EverydaySexism a guy kept harrassing me for my phone number so I gave him the number of another sexist, figured they'd have a lot in common"
annoying, persistent, u name it. but sexist?
Sounds as sexist as being straight is as we only see opposite sex as sexual targets. Or maybe being gay is being sexist because they discriminate against women and only have sex with men.
She was probably walking across the road without looking on her phone or something lol.
We had someone beep us when me and my housemates were crossing a road because the lights changed while we were on the road. People are dicks, but not necessarily sexist.
Felt sorry for the "harassing guy" He might have been pretty shy, trying to talk to a girl he likes and acknowledges that some girls find it annoying so starts with (although not the best thing to say ) "I don't mean to harass you but..." just to be met with a blunt "Don't harass me then" no wonder he got annoyed. And TSR wonder why a lot of guys struggle to go up to girls they like.
Really - you feel sorry for someone who can't take no for an answer
Him: "Look darlin, I don't mean to hassle you but…" Me: "WELL THEN DON'T HASSLE ME." ...Then he got aggressive
The above scenario does not constitute sexism unless you accept either of the following propositions: that aggressive, unsolicited and predatory sexual advances cannot be made by heterosexual women and male homosexuals in respect of other men, or: that male heterosexuality is somehow inherently 'sexist' (i.e. in a manner not simultaneously applicable to female heterosexuality or, indeed, to the very notion of 'sexuality' as a whole).
The latter example is a patent absurdity; whilst the former is but one more fatuous, stereotypical, overweening condemnation of supposedly 'straight male' behaviour which conversely discredits and demeans women even as it professes to denigrate men – ironically the only legitimate instance of bona fide 'sexism' (qua misandry) yet presented herein, and rightly an affront to feminists (qua egalitarians) of all chromosomes.