Is catcalling actually awesome?

[Manfred Belheim]

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).

Sorry, this is waffle again. I was responding to the claim that catcalling is in large part responsible for why women are unsafe walking alone in cities at night. You seem to be responding to this by claiming that women are physically less capable of fending off a physical assault if one happens, and that this should be borne in mind if choosing to walk in a bad neighbourhood. This is patently not the same thing at all (the main clue to this is that you're not even mentioning catcalling at all).

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean, I don't think I'm making a grand statement here Vin, but I'm not going to buy the biological disempowerment argument in this context. If we still fought with sticks and fists sure, but we don't. Women are rather terrific at inflicting violence upon other humans if they've been socialized to it and had the tools made available to them, also, they trend both towards getting randomly attacked less in public and randomly attacking people themselves less, so I'm not sure there's really any insurmountable innate biological malus here. It's socialization in the 21st. That's really the depth of my argument, not anything more. This is all stuff we can impact and change around.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

When I started walking over she turned away and put her hand to shield her face.

...

So I asked if she minded I sit there. She said I'm go ahead and turned further away from me and had her hand up blocking her face harder.

So I'm picturing this... but you can't possibly mean this because even the most socially inept of people would not continue in the face of that. Also... that would be a REALLY bizarre reaction on her part*.

*Unless she's one of Vincour's women who see every single man as an immediate threat to their safety of course, but in which case what was she doing outside of her secure unit in the first place?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

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.

Someone actually "gets it." Thank you Vincour.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's spurious reasoning though. The average man, by definition, will be physically incapable of fighting off 50% of other men. That number will rapidly increase as soon as you're facing more than one attacker, or your attacker has a weapon. An individual man wandering the streets at night is not significantly "safer" than a woman. We're not all Steven Segal you know. And then when you couple that reasoning with the statistics that actually show men are more likely to be attacked/injured in such situations... I mean, anecdotal it may be, but every single person I personally know who has been physically assaulted while out at night (including myself) has been male.

 

[Akka]

I mean, I don't think I'm making a grand statement here Vin, but I'm not going to buy the biological disempowerment argument in this context. If we still fought with sticks and fists sure, but we don't.

What ?
Am I getting it wrong or are you actually arguing that because we have firearms, physical intimidation is something of the past ?

 

[Borachio]

That's spurious reasoning though. The average man, by definition, will be physically incapable of fighting off 50% of other men. That number will rapidly increase as soon as you're facing more than one attacker, or your attacker has a weapon. An individual man wandering the streets at night is not significantly "safer" than a woman. We're not all Steven Segal you know. And then when you couple that reasoning with the statistics that actually show men are more likely to be attacked/injured in such situations... I mean, anecdotal it may be, but every single person I personally know who has been physically assaulted while out at night (including myself) has been male.

This is all true.

However, women are more likely to be subject to sexual assault.

Naturally, though, women are more likely to know their assailant than not. So there's that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is all true.

However, women are more likely to be subject to sexual assault.

Naturally, though, women are more likely to know their assailant than not. So there's that.

I think if I'm laying in a hospital bed with my jaw wired up, I doubt my overriding thought is going to be "well, at least he didn't try and touch my testicles".

 

[Hygro]

So I'm picturing this... Also... that would be a REALLY bizarre reaction on her part*.

Hahaha yes, it would.

 

[Yeekim]

I'd argue that there is a subtle difference "being safe" and "feeling safe".
I mean... I know that sharks are generally gentle, inquisitive creatures who very, very rarely actually attack humans.
I don't think that would stop my heart rate from skyrocketing should I meet a couple largish ones while diving.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd argue that there is a subtle difference "being safe" and "feeling safe".

I think that's much more than a subtle difference.

 

[Farm Boy]

What ?
Am I getting it wrong or are you actually arguing that because we have firearms, physical intimidation is something of the past ?

Lawl. No. But it's a choice far more than it ever was in the past to let the strongarm's power stand on the merits of young and male and fit. Technology and a bit of practice are more powerful than being 20, physically larger than 95% of the populace, and hitting the gymnasium. That we choose, generally, to let it so stand, is socialization. If you don't like it, change it. You can. Unless you aren't allowed to in some manner because your local socialization forbids it, or have a disability that prevents it. World's complicated and whatnot, of course.

 

[Synobun]

And the media just continues to feed into that attitude, so much so that poor Vincour actually believed women were less safe on the streets.

Generally speaking, it's rather impolite to keep talking about other members when they've bowed out of a discussion because they have nothing more to say. I'm confident in what I've contributed to this thread and felt that continuing to wax on would have wasted my time.

So I'll only make one small correction to your need to refer to me as idiotic and sad: I have explicitly said that feeling unsafe does not equal a significant chance of actually being assaulted. Young men being eager beaver to throw down in a dark alley does nothing to either disprove or change my assertions. Your linked article backs up what I've said in this thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hey he's bowed out, you're not allowed to reply.

 

[Synobun]

Hey he's bowed out, you're not allowed to reply.

Directly replying is obviously fine so the mocking is unnecessary. What isn't fine is if someone elects to not respond/cease being a part of the conversation and then people keep making comments bringing them up. It doesn't really serve a purpose except trying to antagonize them into a response, especially when the further comments made are essentially just mocking remarks. You can't force someone into continuing to speak with you and trying to 'encourage' a response by openly mocking them is what I would describe as impolite (@Valessa).

Because first of all, I was calling a behavior idiotic and sad, that's already a difference - I can say that smoking is idiotic, doesn't make the person who smokes an idiot.

I don't really see much of a distinction between the two myself. "Hate the sin, not the sinner" is rarely legitimate. It just feels like an alternative way of saying "Oh, honey..." as they're wont to do in the south. It is an obvious judgement of one's character made more apparent when it is preceded with a "poor [name]".

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think if I'm laying in a hospital bed with my jaw wired up, I doubt my overriding thought is going to be "well, at least he didn't try and touch my testicles".

Real talk: I'd seriously rather have my jaw wired shut any day of the week than have someone rape me up the ass. Not all sexual assault is some minor groping.

That's not even getting into the possibility of getting an STD or, for women, pregnant.

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: This is a family-friendly forum. Please make your points without vivid descriptions of sex acts.

 

[Akka]

Lawl. No. But it's a choice far more than it ever was in the past to let the strongarm's power stand on the merits of young and male and fit. Technology and a bit of practice are more powerful than being 20, physically larger than 95% of the populace, and hitting the gymnasium. That we choose, generally, to let it so stand, is socialization. If you don't like it, change it. You can. Unless you aren't allowed to in some manner because your local socialization forbids it, or have a disability that prevents it. World's complicated and whatnot, of course.

Well, sorry but it all went completely past my head.
Could you rephrase it in a plainer and simpler way ?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not all sexual assault is some minor groping.

Not all sexual assault is rape either. In fact, the majority of sexual assault isn't rape, so you would have had more of a legitimate reason to pull me up if that was the example I'd used.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, sorry but it all went completely past my head.
Could you rephrase it in a plainer and simpler way ?

The brute squad is still real, but never before has being female, small, or past your prime mattered so little. Pepper spray, tasers, handguns, a willingness to use them, and some practice are powerful. Probably more powerful than exercise and an 18 year old man's body. Trayvon Martin kicked George Zimmerman's ass. Cops are not always super in shape.

Now, sure, perhaps we don't want tools of violence around, and yes, perhaps it's unreasonable to ask people to practice violence if they're scared of violence and yes, perhaps it's unreasonable to expect people less likely to suffer violence in public to not be inordinately scared of violence in public but at this point it's a choice to stay that way. I don't arm myself in public. I don't maintain accessible weaponry at home. I don't have the fear, and that relies on a lot of things. Don't kid me that my safety from violence rests on the bellylard, bonelength, and crotchsack I haul around with me. It doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny.