Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Anti-Street Harassment UK- a new feminist group. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    I never said you couldn't complain. More that...you're always complaining. You are taking advantage of political correctness by being expected to be treated better. You will take all that you can get to feel superior amongst males, and never be happy with it. Like the cartoon in the OP's post, wolf whistling used to be perfectly acceptable. And now it seems as though it isn't. How far are you going to take it? Will there be a time when we can no longer compliment you at all? EVEN THOUGH you CLEARLY like the attention and the compliments.

    Do you really think it's okay or acceptable to be harassed? How do you come to the conclusion that not wanting to be harassed makes us 'feel superior amongst males'. Wow a Disney cartoon of a wolf(?) whistling, what has that got to do with how humans interact with each other.

    'Hey, once upon a time it was it was okay to racially abuse people, and now it seems as though it isn't, how far are people going to take it?' :rolleyes:

    Go on then, do explain to me why they are different. From where I'm sitting, I am picking a specific genotype of the girls phenotype, and saying it looks nice.

    In fact, I will go even further. If I were to objectively asses this example, this is how it looks to me "you have nice boobs" - I am complementing what you use to feed your offspring. I am essentially saying you will be able to feed your offspring well and their chances of survival will increase. You would make a good mother. I am sexually attracted to breasts because I know that a mate with good breasts is a good one, better genes, survival of the fittest.

    If anything, this should be more of a compliment then saying "you have nice eyes". What could I be saying there? "your ability to interpret light more clearly from greater distances turns me on". Whatever, it's not really the point.

    The point is, why is complementing a girls tits different to complementing their eyes, or ears, or strains of hair?

    And by looking at it I don't think you know what harassment means. Many employers would probably be sued for sexual harassment if they said anything like "you have nice boobs" to an employee.
    Because in our culture breasts are highly sexualised and like I said in my previous post saying that once is not harassment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    >one line, copied and pasted to form 2 lines

    >"whole paragraph"

    >laughing_girls.jpg
    Makes no sense.

    Try again maybe, after some classes to help you with your > problem?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Do you really think it's okay or acceptable to be harassed? How do you come to the conclusion that not wanting to be harassed makes us 'feel superior amongst males'. Wow a Disney cartoon of a wolf(?) whistling, what has that got to do with how humans interact with each other.

    'Hey, once upon a time it was it was okay to racially abuse people, and now it seems as though it isn't, how far are people going to take it?' :rolleyes:



    Because in our culture breasts are highly sexualised and like I said in my previous post saying that once is not harassment.
    It's not about what I think is right or wrong. It's about the definition of being harassed. I hate arguers like you. You never answer my questions, you post post the usual bull**** about how "it's wrong because it's wrong" without offering any critical analysis. Stop trying to make really clever points, because you are not succeeding. The cartoon clip is obviously a portrayal of human interaction, you idiot. The "wolf" is sitting at a dinner table wearing a suit ffs. There is no way you need this explaining to you, you are not that stupid, you are just being deliberately awkward.

    You still seem to think that the current set of morals is the objectively correct view to hold, without realising that morals change in the future. Ok, you're aware that morals used to be different in the past, your last sentence shows me this. But do you not see that you believe you are right only because you have been influenced by society? In the same way people back then thought it was right to racially abuse people because that's how they have grown up. Any society and any given time will believe their morals and believes are correct, so I can only blame you so much, you are only human.

    But you need to realise the definition, and what constitutes as "harassment" is always changing, so although "harassment" may never be right, what it actually means is always changing.

    "Because in our culture breasts are highly sexualised."

    That doesn't answer my question. You are still just saying "its wrong because its wrong". Breasts shouldn't be sexualised. The fact that they are is just a society influenced response and not a measure of natural objectivity. The fact remains, I am complimenting a specific part of the body. Whatever part should not really matter. And what do you mean saying it once isn't harassment? Is there like a strike enforcement, say it 3 times and boom it suddenly becomes harassment? No, like I said, many people would consider it sexual harassment, especially if you didn't know the person.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Makes no sense.

    Try again maybe, after some classes to help you with your > problem?
    Why did you put a ">" before problem? What are you on about?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Why did you put a ">" before problem? What are you on about?
    Bless, look at you trying :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Bless, look at you trying :rolleyes:
    Still don''t know what your getting at, if your some religious recruiter or something, but please stop contacting me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    It's not about what I think is right or wrong. It's about the definition of being harassed. I hate arguers like you. You never answer my questions, you post post the usual bull**** about how "it's wrong because it's wrong" without offering any critical analysis. Stop trying to make really clever points, because you are not succeeding. The cartoon clip is obviously a portrayal of human interaction, you idiot. The "wolf" is sitting at a dinner table wearing a suit ffs. There is no way you need this explaining to you, you are not that stupid, you are just being deliberately awkward.

    You still seem to think that the current set of morals is the objectively correct view to hold, without realising that morals change in the future. Ok, you're aware that morals used to be different in the past, your last sentence shows me this. But do you not see that you believe you are right only because you have been influenced by society? In the same way people back then thought it was right to racially abuse people because that's how they have grown up. Any society and any given time will believe their morals and believes are correct, so I can only blame you so much, you are only human.

    But you need to realise the definition, and what constitutes as "harassment" is always changing, so although "harassment" may never be right, what it actually means is always changing.
    Your logic seems to be: 'It was okay in the past so why complain now'.

    In Tom and Jerry the two characters beat the crap out of each other, just because it happens in a cartoon doesn't make it acceptable for people to do it. You must be trolling or incredibly stupid to think that because cartoon characters do something it's okay for people to do it.

    Yes, societies 'grow up' and hopefully in the future more people will see that's it's wrong to harass people verbally or otherwise and won't start talking about women's right to vote or what used to be acceptable as some sort of argument as to why no one should complain about it happening.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Your logic seems to be: 'It was okay in the past so why complain now'.

    In Tom and Jerry the two characters beat the crap out of each other, just because it happens in a cartoon doesn't make it acceptable for people to do it. You must be trolling or incredibly stupid to think that because cartoon characters do something it's okay for people to do it.

    Yes, societies 'grow up' and hopefully in the future more people will see that's it's wrong to harass people verbally or otherwise and won't start talking about women's right to vote or what used to be acceptable as some sort of argument as to why no one should complain about it happening.
    That is somewhat my logic. But it is on a much deeper level. More like "it was ok in the past, why isn't it ok now?" And that is not rhetorical. I don't mean that to sound like I am implying it is ok. But if you understand the reason why morals have changed, you will understand that they will change again, and you cannot use legality as a barometer for morality. Homosexuality is currently not allowed in Uganda, and this view is held by 99% of the population. Does that make it right? Does it make it wrong? I don't like to say that something "is" or "isn't", as it depends entirely on the context.

    Again you are trying to make points without putting any thought into them, which means I have to spend time and brain energy explaining why you are wrong (ok, I don't have to). You are trying to patronise me by making it sound like cartoons are real or something to get yourself off the hook. Well if my point about it being acceptable which is why it was shown is void, then how come you never see racial abuse on cartoons? You are completely confusing what's "acceptable", what's "socially/politically acceptable", and what's "legal".

    I am not saying "if a cartoon does it then its ok for humans to do it". You know this is not my point, again you are just deliberately being awkward. My point is, its on a CHILDERENS cartoon, therefore, at the time of airing, it was not politically incorrect. If something is politically incorrect, they do not show it in children's cartoons. You are trolling or incredibly stupid to think that.

    Men and women will only truly ever be equal in society, if they are truly equal in reality. If not, then it's just an endless war.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    That is somewhat my logic. But it is on a much deeper level. More like "it was ok in the past, why isn't it ok now?" And that is not rhetorical. I don't mean that to sound like I am implying it is ok. But if you understand the reason why morals have changed, you will understand that they will change again, and you cannot use legality as a barometer for morality. Homosexuality is currently not allowed in Uganda, and this view is held by 99% of the population. Does that make it right? Does it make it wrong? I don't like to say that something "is" or "isn't", as it depends entirely on the context.

    Again you are trying to make points without putting any thought into them, which means I have to spend time and brain energy explaining why you are wrong (ok, I don't have to). You are trying to patronise me by making it sound like cartoons are real or something to get yourself off the hook. Well if my point about it being acceptable which is why it was shown is void, then how come you never see racial abuse on cartoons? You are completely confusing what's "acceptable", what's "socially/politically acceptable", and what's "legal".

    I am not saying "if a cartoon does it then its ok for humans to do it". You know this is not my point, again you are just deliberately being awkward. My point is, its on a CHILDERENS cartoon, therefore, at the time of airing, it was not politically incorrect. If something is politically incorrect, they do not show it in children's cartoons. You are trolling or incredibly stupid to think that.

    Men and women will only truly ever be equal in society, if they are truly equal in reality. If not, then it's just an endless war.
    Maybe it's not acceptable because nowadays people are of the opinion that it's wrong to touch people without their permission or to consistently disturb people. Why people are of that opinion? I don't know.

    What has the law on homosexuality in Uganda got to do with anything?

    Perhaps producers feel that that it'd be too controversial to show racial abuse in cartoons.

    At the time of airing it was not politically correct to try to kill people, that didn't stop the airing of the 'Coyote' and the 'Roadrunner'. It was neither politically correct nor legal to do such a thing, yet it was and still is aimed at children. Perhaps this shows that most people can differentiate between what goes on in cartoons and what goes in real life.

    Nowadays, beating people up is not socially acceptable, that doesn't stop Tom and Jerry being shown, does it?

    I have no idea why you even brought cartoons into this discussion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    Don't you dare compare feminist issues to that of ethnic minorities this is what you feminists do try to jump on other issues that are much more important and say its exactly the same.
    Do you think it's wrong to racially abuse people?

    Do you think it's wrong to harass people?

    If the answer to both is yes, that what's your problem with what I said?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Do you think it's wrong to racially abuse people?

    Do you think it's wrong to harass people?

    If the answer to both is yes, that what's your problem with what I said?
    My problem with what you said is that what feminists think they're going through or actually are going through has no comparison to what ethnic minorities have been through and probably in some places still go through none what so ever. So don't even try it.

    If you think they are equal in any way , why dont you as a female swap places with a person from an ethnic minority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    That doesn't answer my question. You are still just saying "its wrong because its wrong". Breasts shouldn't be sexualised. The fact that they are is just a society influenced response and not a measure of natural objectivity. The fact remains, I am complimenting a specific part of the body. Whatever part should not really matter. And what do you mean saying it once isn't harassment? Is there like a strike enforcement, say it 3 times and boom it suddenly becomes harassment? No, like I said, many people would consider it sexual harassment, especially if you didn't know the person.
    Okay, stop and let's rewind a moment. You are arguing that you should be "allowed" to say "nice breasts" because it's a compliment. But what exactly is the aim with a compliment? Because if I, personally, give a compliment it's because something is good and I want to make someone feel good about it.

    But you're correct, different cultures feel differently about different things. Something which is viewed as a good asset in the UK might be something someone from a different culture is very self-conscious about, and would be upset if I commented on.

    Now, if I were made aware of this, I would stop commenting on it to people from that culture. Because it was meant to be a compliment and compliments shouldn't have to be things people should grin and bear, or put up with. If I'm consciously forcing someone to feel uncomfortable with a compliment, be that compliment "nice breasts" or "hey, you have awesome hair" or "that was smart of you!" I am Doing It Wrong. Sure, I might not know people were hurt by it until told, but when I've been told, if I keep arguing the point and forcing someone to deal with that, I'm no longer giving a compliment. I'm not trying to make someone feel good. I'm being an ass.

    Now, you? You know the current culture is that a lot of women might feel uncomfortable about attention from a stranger being focused on their breasts. You've said so. But you're going to keep RIGHT ON doing anyway because dammit, you want to! At this point, you're not trying to make people feel good. You're trying to prove a point at the expense of making other people uncomfortable and unhappy. You, sir, are being an ass.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    My problem with what you said is that what feminists think theyre going through or actually are going through has no comparison to what ethnic minorities have been through and probably in some places still go through none what so ever. So don't even try it.
    Why do you keep calling me a feminist?

    Do women in some places not go through very bad things that ethnic minorities go through in some places?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Do you think it's wrong to racially abuse people?

    Do you think it's wrong to harass people?

    If the answer to both is yes, that what's your problem with what I said?
    At this point, I'm afraid I would ignore him. He's only going to rant incoherently at anyone, male or female, who disagrees with him so it might be time for us to quit engaging.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    And to answer your second point, yes I do think that. Do you think back when women couldn't vote and had hardly any rights they would think twice about being whistled at? Nope. Do they now? Yes.They would probably take is as a compliment back then.
    Would you like to give a historical reference (other than "probably") and define which women you're talking about "back then"? Cite sources please. Because I'm pretty sure that "back then" in a great deal of cases our brothers, husbands and fathers would have taken it upon themselves to deal with men trying that behaviour themselves, and you would have ended up feeling rather sorrier for yourself than you are because a group of women on an internet forum told you your behaviour wasn't acceptable.

    The difference is that now we do it for ourselves which means that guys like you get a whole lot more whining in about how its not fair.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Maybe it's not acceptable because nowadays people are of the opinion that it's wrong to touch people without their permission or to consistently disturb people. Why people are of that opinion? I don't know.

    What has the law on homosexuality in Uganda got to do with anything?

    Perhaps producers feel that that it'd be too controversial to show racial abuse in cartoons.

    At the time of airing it was not politically correct to try to kill people, that didn't stop the airing of the 'Coyote' and the 'Roadrunner'. It was neither politically correct nor legal to do such a thing, yet it was and still is aimed at children. Perhaps this shows that most people can differentiate between what goes on in cartoons and what goes in real life.

    Nowadays, beating people up is not socially acceptable, that doesn't stop Tom and Jerry being shown, does it?

    I have no idea why you even brought cartoons into this discussion.
    Well by your logic, it's legal over there and acceptable, so therefore they are correct and homosexuality is wrong? No. I was using to prove that everything is contextual and relative, and how morals differ, so make you realise that harassment isn't necessarily a big deal.

    Violence is hardly the hot topic of political correctness. A better example to compare sexism with is the racism example you brought up earlier.

    "Perhaps producers feel that that it'd be too controversial to show racial abuse in cartoons."

    Bingo. Just as if this new law gets passed, you will unlikely see wolf whistling in cartoons which air after the law. My point is, they can't just put whatever they want on cartoons, they need some cut off point as to what is and isn't acceptable. And if something was so unnacceptable, they wouldn't show it on a children cartoon. Blood is rarley seen on childerens cartoons. What is the extent of the violence you see on tom and jerry? A bump to the head? Do you ever see a human being getting murdered on a childrens cartoon?

    And I brought cartoons into this (if you can even say I was the one to bring it up) because I was just making a reference to the one the OP posted...you were the one who pedantically took what I was saying too literally "hurrrr its a wolf not a human durrr".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    Why do you keep calling me a feminist?

    Do women in some places not go through very bad things that ethnic minorities go through in some places?
    You may know the dictionary meaning of the word discrimination but I tell you right now you do not know how it feels you have not lived it so stick to the subjects you really do know. So run along with your pal forever anon and don't talk about what you don't know.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    Would you like to give a historical reference (other than "probably") and define which women you're talking about "back then"? Cite sources please. Because I'm pretty sure that "back then" in a great deal of cases our brothers, husbands and fathers would have taken it upon themselves to deal with men trying that behaviour themselves, and you would have ended up feeling rather sorrier for yourself than you are because a group of women on an internet forum told you your behaviour wasn't acceptable.

    The difference is that now we do it for ourselves which means that guys like you get a whole lot more whining in about how its not fair.
    You're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to go anywhere near that amount of trouble to prove a point to someone I don't even know. Either don't believe me or find out for yourself. I don't really care.

    To me it seems logical that if a woman had no rights, it would be expected that they would just brush off a wolf whistle without thinking twice as they would be used to it. Even today some women experience it so often they don't notice it. Such as my friend Emma Parkinson, who told me this on August 13th 2010 at I think 14.13.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edd360)
    Well by your logic, it's legal over there and acceptable, so therefore they are correct and homosexuality is wrong? No. I was using to prove that everything is contextual and relative, and how morals differ, so make you realise that harassment isn't necessarily a big deal.

    Violence is hardly the hot topic of political correctness. A better example to compare sexism with is the racism example you brought up earlier.

    "Perhaps producers feel that that it'd be too controversial to show racial abuse in cartoons."

    Bingo. Just as if this new law gets passed, you will unlikely see wolf whistling in cartoons which air after the law. My point is, they can't just put whatever they want on cartoons, they need some cut off point as to what is and isn't acceptable. And if something was so unnacceptable, they wouldn't show it on a children cartoon. Blood is rarley seen on childerens cartoons. What is the extent of the violence you see on tom and jerry? A bump to the head? Do you ever see a human being getting murdered on a childrens cartoon?

    And I brought cartoons into this (if you can even say I was the one to bring it up) because I was just making a reference to the one the OP posted...you were the one who pedantically took what I was saying too literally "hurrrr its a wolf not a human durrr".
    When did I say or imply that I think that because something is legal it is therefore acceptable:confused:

    Why isn't violence a topic of political correctness? Either it's considered politically incorrect or it isn't.

    Going by your 'bingo' point, violence, such as characters being hit, beaten, electrocuted, tied up etc wouldn't be showed in children's cartoons as it's socially unacceptable.

    Or perhaps we portray things in children's cartoons despite the fact that we don't consider it acceptable for people to do and we expect even children to be able to grasp the concept that what happens on TV isn't always acceptable in real life :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    You may know the dictionary meaning of the word discrimination but I tell you right now you do not know how it feels you have not lived it so stick to the subjects you really do know. So run along with your pal forever anon and don't talk about what you don't know.
    Just as earlier today, you fail to answer questions. Perhaps when you improve your reading comprehension skills you may be able to engage in a civilised debate.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.