Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cable)
    If you're not a selfish feminist that only cares about equality just for females, then what's your problem? If you checked the context of my posts, I was talking about feminists that throw their dummy out of the pram and only care about themselves, not men. If you're not one of them, then I don't see what your problem is.

    However, it's nice to know that there are some women out there that also consider men's problems as well as their own.
    Because I am a feminist. And I dislike comments that go "All feminists hate guys and this, that and the other" when from the perspective of I, and other women who claim that title, it's not a truth.

    So, yes, I'll argue for the right of guys to get fair car insurance because a penis doesn't force you to drive faster. But at the same time I'll fight for the right of women not to have their personal space invaded just because they have boobs, and not to be hounded out of my industry (computing) because of guys who think Girls Don't Do Computers.

    The first doesn't stop me doing the second and third. I can defend men and women if treatment is unfair.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    Because I am a feminist. And I dislike comments that go "All feminists hate guys and this, that and the other" when from the perspective of I, and other women who claim that title, it's not a truth.

    So, yes, I'll argue for the right of guys to get fair car insurance because a penis doesn't force you to drive faster. But at the same time I'll fight for the right of women not to have their personal space invaded just because they have boobs, and not to be hounded out of my industry (computing) because of guys who think Girls Don't Do Computers.

    The first doesn't stop me doing the second and third. I can defend men and women if treatment is unfair.
    That's great, but most feminists are self-interested. Why do you think leading "feminists" like Harriet Harman support ridiculous ideas like artificial quotas for women in parliament?
    Then again I don't blame them, nor do I particularly criticise them, since pretty much all political groups/ideologies are self-interested.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Are they? How do you know?

    The "Stop Street Harrassment" website is solely about protecting women, it even says "for women" on the website title header.
    Because this very rarely happens to men, for publicity reasons it is targeted at women.

    You'd have to be psychotic to think that anti-street harassment campaigns can't apply to men though, it's obvious, it's common sense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Archaos)
    I really don't think you can compare this to a doctor caring for sufferers of bowel cancer. Doctors still exist to cure throat cancer, neither types of doctors are in conflict with each other and there is no dispute of 'rights' between victims of each disease.
    It's exactly the same.

    Where is the dispute of people's rights?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    No my comments on these privileged woman doesnt apply to all woman such as lower class woman , black woman or any woman from a unprivileged background just this caucasian woman who actually are privileged yet play the part of victim at the same time.
    I'm working-class. Very working-class actually. Currently a mature student funding myself through the final year of university.

    I grew up in an area where, only a few years ago, there was a huge campaign against domestic abuse in relationships, because it is so common still that the zero tolerance message needed re-inforcing - that's feminism.

    I temped in a job where two women discussed loudly how one of them had a neighbour who was beaten up by her husband, and how embarrassed would they have been if it was them? Trying to correct that viewpoint? That's feminism.

    I worked in an industry where females are highly outnumbered by guys. I've been overlooked for promotion for two, less qualified, guys. I've been spoken to patronisingly where my colleagues weren't because a short female is a "girl" in the eyes of many middle-aged men, whereas a six foot male is definitely a man. I left that company, but before I did I did a lot of groundwork so the women coming after me might find it that bit easier. And that? Is feminism.

    And now I'm applying for jobs all over again. I leave my engagement ring off when I go to interviews because in a smaller company I've learnt that woman with engagement ring = marriage = pregnancy = oh no, maternity leave!

    My partner, in the same industry, tells recruiters intentionally that he's engaged because it convinces them he won't be after moving any time soon. For a man, marriage == stability.

    Now, working so my younger sisters don't experience that. Might that be feminism?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EggmanD)
    Sigh, this is the most retarded argument that comes up in these stupid debates. Replacing one word with another or one group with another does not make your original point correct/moral/acceptable and all you are doing is supporting this moronic idea that people have a right not to be offended, they dont.
    Actually they do. It's a basic Human Right;

    "Protected persons shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity"
    - Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    Because I am a feminist. And I dislike comments that go "All feminists hate guys and this, that and the other" when from the perspective of I, and other women who claim that title, it's not a truth.
    You only have the "extreme" feminists to blame for that though. Not us guys.
    All women shortlists for political candiates for example. How the bloody hell is that fair at all? And if anthing, feminists should be against things like that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Because this very rarely happens to men, for publicity reasons it is targeted at women.

    You'd have to be psychotic to think that anti-street harassment campaigns can't apply to men though, it's obvious, it's common sense.
    ...

    Of course they could apply to men; that doesn't mean that this particular one does.

    I can't see the "Anti-Street Harrassment" website, it doesn't appear to exist. I can see a "Stop Street Harrassment" one, and it is targetted solely at women. Its mission statement is "making public places safe and welcoming for women".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kerny)
    That's great, but most feminists are self-interested. Why do you think leading "feminists" like Harriet Harman support ridiculous ideas like artificial quotas for women in parliament?
    Then again I don't blame them, nor do I particularly criticise them, since pretty much all political groups/ideologies are self-interested.
    Because, in the current system, candidates for Parliament are chosen by local parties. Local parties regularly pick someone who looks like them to stand. That's a problem when, in the Labour party especially, local parties are full of middle-aged union guys.

    It's the same reason large companies usually have a recruitment process for their grad schemes so they can prove why they picked a certain candidate. If you have a large amount of one type of person in the hiring process they might well unconsciously bias themselves towards someone who looks like them. And yes that can go both ways, with guys maybe finding it harder to get a job somewhere like the beauty or fashion industries if everyone hiring is a female who thinks women are better at that stuff.

    I don't necessarily agree with Harman's way of going about it, but the Labour party in particular has a pitiful record of running women for election (and what they do to them when they have them -- Blair's Babes was horrifying. They certainly need to do something about that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You only have the "extreme" feminists to blame for that though. Not us guys.
    All women shortlists for political candiates for example. How the bloody hell is that fair at all? And if anthing, feminists should be against things like that.
    Okay. So can I blame you guys for the guys who wolf-whistle at me in the street? I mean you only have the EXTREME men to blame if I say all men suck because of that, not us women?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Actually I think a woman in a trouser suit is rather attractive. To me it says "I actually have dignity and respect for myself". Although I would never dream of shouting obscenities, even if a woman was wearing very little, I would be tempted to smile at you and ask you if you maybe wanted to grab a coffee with me :blush::erm:
    Admit it Kev, you'd be tempted to move in for a cheeky grope lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    Okay. So can I blame you guys for the guys who wolf-whistle at me in the street? I mean you only have the EXTREME men to blame if I say all men suck because of that, not us women?
    Well i think association by political group is a bit more specific than association by gender/sex....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    Hate to tell you this, but from someone who values their personal space highly, you're wrong. I get edgy when someone I don't know thinks they have rights on my person, and I don't care what they look like. I'm a shorty (5'1) which doesn't help. Someone makes threatening moves, I'm not thinking "oh boy, they're hot", I'm thinking "oh ****, they've got nearly a foot on me and they're intimidating as hell".

    I don't think guys, sometimes, realise how intimidating they can be just by virtue of size. Even the GOOD mannered ones -- I've been taken aback, a time or two, by six foot guys I barely know grabbing me in a hug and kissing me on the cheek to say hello. Awesome, you're friendly, yes, but for that five seconds my brain is going "YOU'RE CAUGHT, RUN THE HELL AWAY!" I'm not talking guys I was dating, but married and in-relationship guys who learnt this is Good Manners.

    (And most of the ones doing that? Lovely guys, who when talked to politely realised what they were doing and shifted to handshakes just as they would with, I dunno, ANY OTHER GUY THEY KNEW. )
    Yes this may be the case for you, but I wouldn't be surprised if other women acted in this way.
    In fact, I've seen it myself. Good looking girl gets approached by unattractive guy and then suddenly that guy is a 'perv'. Woman gets approached in exactly the same way by an attractive guy and he is 'romantic'. Its absurd!

    Also the fact that some people in this thread think making comments or even whistling at a woman counts as harassment is very disturbing. If a woman goes out dressed in an attractive way, she will obviously receive attention. Continuously shouting at her would be taking it to far, but surely whistling at her or shouting 'hows it going darling' is harmless. They are getting the attention they were probably looking for in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The main problem with this group so far as I can see it is the hyperbolic nature of post-1960's feminist rhetoric, it alienates people by being strident, exaggeratory, hyper-gender conscious and refusing to accomodate context. A feminist is not likely to say "annoying people on the street is wrong", they are more likely to say "men assert their power granted to them by the patriachy by systematically humilaiting and disempowering womyn, we must set up groups for survivors of sexual whistling and shout-rape" OK maybe not that bad but you get my point, it provokes a justified backlash. I think it's social relations viewed through this ideological (and in my opinion the ideology is simplistic and bifurcated) lens that worries people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canimakeit)
    Well i think association by political group is a bit more specific than association by gender/sex....
    You're right! But feminist isn't a political group. It's a collection of movements.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

    You can't be de-elected from the feminist party because there isn't one. I can't exclude you, stop you from calling yourself a feminist and being a ****, or in fact do anything other than going, "Well, I'm a feminist, and all these people with me are feminists, and we believe this and we aren't like that". You don't even have to vote a certain way to hold onto the name.

    I can't stop everyone calling themselves a feminist from acting like an ass. You can't stop everyone with a penis from acting like an ass. But I promise not to hold you responsible for their dickish behaviour if you can do the same.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Actually I think a woman in a trouser suit is rather attractive. To me it says "I actually have dignity and respect for myself". Although I would never dream of shouting obscenities, even if a woman was wearing very little, I would be tempted to smile at you and ask you if you maybe wanted to grab a coffee with me :blush::erm:
    Aw. But thats nice!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Yes this may be the case for you, but I wouldn't be surprised if other women acted in this way.
    In fact, I've seen it myself. Good looking girl gets approached by unattractive guy and then suddenly that guy is a 'perv'. Woman gets approached in exactly the same way by an attractive guy and he is 'romantic'. Its absurd!

    Also the fact that some people in this thread think making comments or even whistling at a woman counts as harassment is very disturbing. If a woman goes out dressed in an attractive way, she will obviously receive attention. Continuously shouting at her would be taking it to far, but surely whistling at her or shouting 'hows it going darling' is harmless. They are getting the attention they were probably looking for in the first place.
    If I go out dressed attractively I might be going to a party, or a family celebration. If I'm looking for attention, it's almost definitely not from a random stranger. Being yelled at, from the perspective of a lone, short, female is scary. Your brain isn't going "AWESOME, ATTENTION!" but "ARE THEY COMING OVER? CAN I GET AWAY?". I've had utter strangers shoo off guys who wouldn't let me alone at taxi ranks after a work do, and I thank God those men exist because I was terrified. And, please note, I don't have to dress up. Some guys will do it no matter what you're wearing. I used to have to get the bus home through a town centre after late night call centre work, regularly in trousers and a blouse, and again it was scary.

    Might some women act badly? Certainly. But again, unless you personally treat me badly I'm not going to punish you for being a man because some men hurt women. Do you think you could refrain from terrifying me in the street for the crime of dressing nicely and being female until I do, in fact, act badly?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foreveranon)
    If I go out dressed attractively I might be going to a party, or a family celebration. If I'm looking for attention, it's almost definitely not from a random stranger. Being yelled at, from the perspective of a lone, short, female is scary. Your brain isn't going "AWESOME, ATTENTION!" but "ARE THEY COMING OVER? CAN I GET AWAY?". I've had utter strangers shoo off guys who wouldn't let me alone at taxi ranks after a work do, and I thank God those men exist because I was terrified. And, please note, I don't have to dress up. Some guys will do it no matter what you're wearing. I used to have to get the bus home through a town centre after late night call centre work, regularly in trousers and a blouse, and again it was scary.

    Might some women act badly? Certainly. But again, unless you personally treat me badly I'm not going to punish you for being a man because some men hurt women. Do you think you could refrain from terrifying me in the street for the crime of dressing nicely and being female until I do, in fact, act badly?
    This raises the question, why do women (or anyone) dress attractively?

    To look nice- why do they want to look nice?
    So that people notice them- why do they want people to notice them?
    So that people can comment on how nice they look- why do they want people to comment?
    So that they can feel good about themselves.

    There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you assume you can pick and choose who gives you the attention. It is not up to you. A stranger can give you attention just as a friend can.

    Try not to think of this solely from your perspective, as someone who seems to be afraid of strangers. Think of it from the perspective of the average woman who goes out looking nice.

    Most men aren't going to chase you down the street. The majority of situations will stop with a comment or a whistle etc. But then, they are just getting the attention they were obviously looking for.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Actually they do. It's a basic Human Right;

    "Protected persons shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity"
    - Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention
    I dont really know what to say to that.. never in my life have i heard such a backwards law....How does a documentary on the elephant man for example get on television if it fuels public curiosity? regardless of consent or context it directly breaks this law.

    Back on topic, lewd comments and skirt chasing is a compliment not an insult even though it is perceived as the latter. The wording of 'protected persons' rather than 'all humans' implies some sort of abnormal status.. what happens if a few school children stare at a disabled child out of curiosity? What happens then? You might be able to dictate social change by supporting a 'protected person' where its illegal to shout at a women in the street or whatever but you cant stop infantile curiosity without segregating children and when they turn on the tele they will see the elephant man and be curious again!

    I just dont understand it. Still, i dont think it has supported evidence against people having a right not to be offended for the simple fact that people are offended by anything and everything.

    A Muslim is offended by women showing skin, a racist is offended by people with different coloured skin, a vegan is offended by meat eaters, a rock fan is offended by hip hop, OAPs are offended by swearwords on tv, a conservative is offended by labour policies, a protester is offended by whatever they are protesting against, a homophobe is offended by a homosexual, a man city fan is offended by a man united fan..
    I am offended by skinny mustard yellow jeans and women wearing mens shoes..

    What im saying is, regardless of ridding the world of wrongs (racism, homophobia or whatever) there is no right not to be offended otherwise every single person in the world would be breaking the law and therefore some sort of social change/new law would be put in place until the world turns into a neutral grey block of non offensive therefore identical houses / people/ food/ cars/ music/ tv/ art/ sport/ websites/ religion/ sex/ boats/ countries/cultures etcetcetcetc

    There needs to be some logic and common sense involved (for example - going to Oceania, drinking and listening to music that glorifies what this is against does not give you a solid foot to stand on and if you do have a problem take it up with the record companies or the people who support this scene) and some groups need to tolerate what already is otherwise other groups can jump onto the 'im offended by this' bandwagon and **** up the world even more.

    Back onto the issue, im not condoning harassing women at all and i dont like it but i dont condone or like a hell of a lot of things that happen regardless. Obviously women being targeted at night or being uncomfortable walking down the street is an issue and it needs to be adressed but following in the footsteps of one women who had a bad experience walking in dangerous area alone and running into trouble is not the way to go about positive change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    Most men aren't going to chase you down the street. The majority of situations will stop with a comment or a whistle etc. But then, they are just getting the attention they were obviously looking for.
    Firstly, thank you for your good manners, rather than yelling that I'm wrong. It is appreciated.

    Secondly, I'd like to ask you to read back through this thread, and this time look for the women's responses rather than the guys.

    I've seen a lot of women stating that this sort of attention makes them uncomfortable.

    I've seen some women stating that it doesn't bother them, or they ignore it.

    I've seen some stating that the best response is to yell back.

    What I haven't seen is many, if any at all, saying that they enjoy this attention. This would echo my observations from day to day life -- I don't actually know any women personally (and again, working class and at uni -- I've got friends a lot posher than me and friends some people might call chavs) who would say they enjoyed it.

    In that light, I would ask you to re-consider whether women, ANY women, ARE looking for this type of attention or whether that's just a common assumption by men? Or whether, if there are women looking for and enjoying that kind of attention, they might not be the anomaly rather than the ones who dislike it? And, if that is the case, whether it is morally correct to continue offering an attention which you know there is an over 50% chance that the person in question will either actively dislike or just ignore?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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 PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.