Is catcalling actually awesome?

[SS-18 ICBM]

Shouting at people on the street is just uncouth.

 

[RomanKing]

This thread is great.

If anyone would like some lessons on catcalling feel free to PM me.

Pro Tip: Get your buddies involved and be sexually suggestive, but not too explicit.

 

[Jabarto]

I actually thought the first post was satire but we have 3 pages of people entertaining the idea that catcalling is good and we should be fostering a culture around it, in this, The Year of Our Lord 2017. I don't know what's real anymore.

 

[Ryika]

I actually thought the first post was satire but we have 3 pages of people entertaining the idea that catcalling is good and we should be fostering a culture around it, in this, The Year of Our Lord 2017. I don't know what's real anymore.

Sometimes I wonder whether poe's law applies in reverse, too. How hard do you have to argue for something until people can no longer tell whether you're doing satire, being honest, or just a lying prick, and is there a point at which you can actually convince people that you're not doing satire just by arguing alone? And could you convince people that you're being honest, even if you're not?

Of course none of that has anything to do with this thread, so no idea why I'm even bringing it up!

Any idea should be entertained.

 

[Yeekim]

I beg to differ. I find her rather unappealing.

You're either misusing that word or gay.

 

[Akka]

un·ap·peal·ing
ˌənəˈpēliNG/
adjective

1. not inviting or attractive.

Nah, pretty much exactly what I intended.
I mean, she's not ugly, but I don't find her attractive.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. She's not my type, either.

I think if you scraped all the makeup off, you'd find something with a slightly too angular jaw, an ungenerous mouth, little piggy eyes, and far too much hair.

That's not to say that I'd crawl over her in bed to get to you, though. (As the saying goes.)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I suspect this is just the thin edge of the wedge though. And is in large part responsible for why women aren't safe alone on city streets at night.

Wow, this is really reaching. I can well understand the argument that catcalling is largely unwelcome, impolite, and potentially intimidating, but how on Earth does any of that translate directly to safety? You can only say it's in "large part" responsible for why women aren't safe if you think that a large fraction of catcallers are perfectly willing to be violent to the women they catcall. And even then it's the violence that's responsible, not the catcalling. The catcalling is merely an indicator. In fact you could then argue that catcalling is a GOOD thing because at least it provides an indicator to potentially act upon.

And that's even accepting the bald assertion that women aren't safe alone on city streets at night, which I would think is actually largely untrue anyway.

 

[Synobun]

Wow, this is really reaching. I can well understand the argument that catcalling is largely unwelcome, impolite, and potentially intimidating, but how on Earth does any of that translate directly to safety? You can only say it's in "large part" responsible for why women aren't safe if you think that a large fraction of catcallers are perfectly willing to be violent to the women they catcall. And even then it's the violence that's responsible, not the catcalling. The catcalling is merely an indicator. In fact you could then argue that catcalling is a GOOD thing because at least it provides an indicator to potentially act upon.

And that's even accepting the bald assertion that women aren't safe alone on city streets at night, which I would think is actually largely untrue anyway.

"Potentially intimidating" becomes "threat to safety" if you're biologically put into a position where the "potentially intimidating" people are more than likely capable of overpowering you if they so choose. For the most part, when it comes to safety (especially in 'dangerous' settings), a woman's safety comes at the "generosity" of the male. You are safe because those who can harm you have graciously chosen to not do so. Men catcalling women in a dark or otherwise inconvenient setting has the underlying implication that the woman must find a way to deescalate without angering the other person to avoid violent retribution (or the threat of it).

You don't have to act like male-on-female violence is a new concept straight from the SJW camp. Through biology alone we're set up in a position where men hold power over women through physical strength. Combine that with a society that favours men and a general trend that men are encouraged to be violent (boys will be boys) or aggressive and you have a situation where a woman is unlikely to feel safe in a large portion of environments. Feeling unsafe does not mean that they will be attacked each time they dare step foot outside the house, but it does mean that their quality of life is specifically hindered by the circumstances that lead to their being unsafe.

The various programs about women's safety don't exist for a laugh. They are there for a reason.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"Potentially intimidating" becomes "threat to safety" if you're biologically put into a position where the "potentially intimidating" people are more than likely capable of overpowering you if they so choose.

No it doesn't, not at all. The fact that you feel intimidated by someone has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are actually a threat to your safety. They don't magically become a threat to your safety if they have no hostile intent, no matter how intimidated you are. And I have absolutely no idea what "biologically put into a position" means.

The rest of your post is just waffle about how, for the most part, men could physically dominate women if they choose to, and then stating that sometimes that happens. Neither point is in question or relevant to what I said.

 

[Synobun]

No it doesn't, not at all. The fact that you feel intimidated by someone has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are actually a threat to your safety. They don't magically become a threat to your safety if they have no hostile intent, no matter how intimidated you are. And I have absolutely no idea what "biologically put into a position" means.

The rest of your post is just waffle about how, for the most part, men could physically dominate women if they choose to, and then stating that sometimes that happens. Neither point is in question or relevant to what I said.

Well hey man, if my post is "just waffle" you're by no means obligated to respond to it. I feel I made a coherent point, it's unfortunate you don't agree.

As for "And I have absolutely no idea what "biologically put into a position" means," you could read the next two immediate sentences and suss it out for yourself. I'm also certain you can figure out why "I'm surrounded by people who can overpower me and I don't see any accessible help" might make someone feel unsafe, especially when there is precedent for why someone might feel unsafe in such a scenario.

 

[Farm Boy]

Through biology alone we're set up in a position where men hold power over women through physical strength.

Fine motor skills, a lower center of gravity, and some fairly common technology revolving around chemical charges and precision shaped metal flip that biological advantage at least somewhat, if we find this to be of relevance.

 

[Synobun]

Fine motor skills, a lower center of gravity, and some fairly common technology revolving around chemical charges and precision shaped metal flip that biological advantage at least somewhat, if we find this to be of relevance.

Absolutely, but carrying a weapon is often not an option depending on cost or law. It also assumes that the victim is in a position where they can reliably use it if they are attacked or in imminent danger along with the willingness to pull the trigger (if it's a gun). There's also the problem that something like pepper/bear spray may not actually stop an aggressor, and something like a knife is likely to get the victim charged with a crime instead of being let off the hook for self-defense.

 

[Synobun]

See, it's not about whether it exists or not, of course it does. But many things exist, the important thing is proportionality. If I acted like any man I come across is a potential threat, then I wouldn't have a quiet minute in my life. That's what you're advocating for? No wonder so many of the women in these movements aren't quite right in the head (the men aren't either, but for different reasons), living in constant fear of the boogie man, what a terrible life.

If you live in an area where such an assumption is logical based on the statistics, then yes, you should probably be a bit more suspicious of men outside of safe areas. It's up to you to determine what that means. It seems like you've decided that this means "living in constant fear of the boogeyman". That's your choice and isn't what I'm suggesting myself.

Put yourself in the same position. Whenever you come across a man who's taller than you, or more muscular than you, or who looks a bit insane, or whose hands aren't quite visible, try to convince yourself they're a threat. Suddenly the world becomes a very scary place, and for no reason at all. That's the situation that you're putting women into who believe the nonsense that people like you spout, and for what? The feeling of doing something good? Or do you actually believe your own narrative?

I can't defend myself should someone decide I'm a target, so yes I believe my own narrative if I'm in a location known for that risk. I have no reason to trust in the benevolence of a stranger who could do serious harm to me and I'm helpless to prevent it.

I don't feel unsafe walking at night where I live right now because that risk isn't there. There might be one or two night attacks in my entire neighbourhood per year, at most. The feeling of being unsafe is dependent on the risk of where you are. If there is no risk, there is no reason to feel unsafe unless the specific situation warrants it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Absolutely, but carrying a weapon is often not an option depending on cost or law. It also assumes that the victim is in a position where they can reliably use it if they are attacked or in imminent danger along with the willingness to pull the trigger (if it's a gun). There's also the problem that something like pepper/bear spray may not actually stop an aggressor, and something like a knife is likely to get the victim charged with a crime instead of being let off the hook for self-defense.

If we're at the level of discussion where biological advantage in performing violence upon one another is relevant - technology is a factor and it changes things. If women are unwilling to defend themselves, or the law/economics makes it difficult for them to do so, then that isn't biological advantage, it is socialization.

 

[Synobun]

Then you're just being dishonest (or at least what you're saying is extremely misleading) by talking in general terms when you're actually talking about bad neighborhoods where not only the women, but everybody else as well, has a good reason to feel unsafe.

Or maybe your reading comprehension is lacking? See, I can also make claims on one's character. It's unproductive. If you have an issue with what I've said, you can do what you did in the second half of your sentence.

I'm comfortable in what I've said previously. The risk between men and women is not equal. The only instance where a man will be more at risk is if there's specific context that makes them a high-value target to the aggressor. The base risk for women is higher than it is for men.

 

[Farm Boy]

For violence, or for sexual violence? In the home or in public? Leaving the house skews who is at proportionally greater risk, doesn't it?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well hey man, if my post is "just waffle" you're by no means obligated to respond to it. I feel I made a coherent point, it's unfortunate you don't agree.

As for "And I have absolutely no idea what "biologically put into a position" means," you could read the next two immediate sentences and suss it out for yourself. I'm also certain you can figure out why "I'm surrounded by people who can overpower me and I don't see any accessible help" might make someone feel unsafe, especially when there is precedent for why someone might feel unsafe in such a scenario.

By "waffle" I meant that it was irrelevant to what I said, and didn't counter it, not that it wasn't coherent. I declined to respond to it for that reason.

Feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe. And frankly if your outlook on life is that anyone who can feasibly physically overpower is likely to attempt to overpower you, how can you even function in society? That's mental illness territory.

 

[Synobun]

For violence, or for sexual violence? In the home or in public?

I'm not going to take the domestic abuse bait, unfortunately. You're welcome to read the conversation from the beginning and come to your own conclusion about what I'm referring to.

Feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe. And frankly if your outlook on life is that anyone who can feasibly physically overpower is likely to attempt to overpower you, how can you even function in society? That's mental illness territory.

As nice as the "you're mentally ill" claim might be, I made a specific distinction between feeling unsafe and having the reason for the lack of safety acted upon. Why people feel unsafe is rarely born of an ill mind and usually has some basis in reality (i.e. there's a definitive reason why they are feeling unsafe).

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm guessing you mean public. Catcalling is the OP. Entering public eliminates the sphere where, if we're caring about proportionality, women have the worse and leaves in the sphere were men, proportionally, get the business.

Has that changed? Am I out of date?