More death threats -- Woman take video of her walk through New York

[GVC]

I don't dismiss based on her ideology, but on her tactics in presenting it.

Maybe re-read your post.

Which argument, in particular, do you think she made that merits discussion?

The only thing she arguably added to the discussion in this thread is the content of hollaback's mission statement. FWIW, I could have chastised nightmare for his appeal to authority as well. Given his other posts in this thread, I hold him to a lower standard, however, and see no need to engage him directly (or at all).

To which legislation do you refer? Is there any bill under any consideration in the US or Canada?

None. You attacked her argument. I'm merely pointing out flaws in your argument, and making a general statement about relevant considerations when legislating behavior.

 

[GVC]

???

I said, "For example, her claim that street harassment occurs more frequently in economically deprived neighborhoods is factually false." I was asked to provide evidence that this particular statement was factually false, and offered the study as evidence that this statement was false. The study was not offered with the intent of justifying any particular type of legislation.

I agree legislation on this matter would affect poor people more than rich people, almost all legislation does. It is something to weigh upon in any potential legislation.

You ignored the context of her statement, which had to do with who would be affected by legislation. Since decisions about the enforcement of these laws is far more likely to happen within than across geographic designations (rural/urban/suburban), the relevant study would look for variation within rather than across designations. The statistics you presented looked across rather than within designations.

edit: That is to say, it's not entirely clear which "neighborhoods" she's referring to. Is she saying that there's a negative correlation between wealth and catcalling in general, or saying that this relationship holds only in comparable neighborhoods (e.g. neighborhoods in the same city/police department)? If it's the latter, which seems to make more sense within the discussion about the consequences of legislation (to me, anyway), what you've provided doesn't address her claim at all. I agree, however, that her claim should be challenged, although it seems pretty reasonable (to me, anyway).

 

[DutchJazzer]

Hollaback! has acknowledged that their choice of locations had that connotation, but says it got cat calls just as frequently on Wall Street.

video proof?

 

[Nightmare]

Can you time stamp where it Christina Hoff Sommers says "street harassment occurs more frequently in economically deprived neighborhoods " far as I know she said the street harassment in the video, I could be wrong. Also she admitted that catcalls are a annoyance but rightfully said you cannot make laws against annoyances just because they are annoying.

I am not sure how I feel about GVC saying he holds me to lower standard, I posted my own thoughts and feelings about the issue earlier, I posted a woman's opinion incase someone thinks I am not qualified for answering the issue I posted a woman who is self identified as a feminist and is part of her career.

It is funny how every women feminist that doesn't agree with One Brow isn't the good kind of feminist.

If we all listed things we agree with or don't agree with I think everyones would be pretty similar if not identical. Here is what I agree with.

1) Catcalling is probably not the most effective way to approach women, is annoying, but is part of free speech and no government action should be taken against it.
2) Women, and in particular attractive women have to go through catcalling throughout much of their life whenever they are on the street.
3) Don't catcall, there are better ways to get women.
4) (the most likely one to be disagreed with) The video had a lot less "harassing" than I would expect a young actress to go through during a 10 hour setting traveling to areas in New York like Harlem. It really wasn't that bad.
5) Approaching strangers in public, even flirting with them is not always harassment. If other party finds out not interested, should immediately stop.

 

[GVC]

1) Catcalling is probably not the most effective way to approach women, is annoying, but is part of free speech and no government action should be taken against it.
2) Women, and in particular attractive women have to go through catcalling throughout much of their life whenever they are on the street.
3) Don't catcall, there are better ways to get women.
4) (the most likely one to be disagreed with) The video had a lot less "harassing" than I would expect a young actress to go through during a 10 hour setting traveling to areas in New York like Harlem. It really wasn't that bad.
5) Approaching strangers in public, even flirting with them is not always harassment. If other party finds out not interested, should immediately stop.

You've largely ignored reasonable consideration of others' feelings/privacy. That's one brow's focus (even if he takes it a bit too far). Just because something is effective, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Presumably, drugging and raping vulnerable young women is an effective way to get laid. I doubt you'd argue it's the right thing to do.

 

[Nightmare]

You've largely ignored reasonable consideration of others' feelings/privacy. That's one brow's focus (even if he takes it a bit too far). Just because something is effective, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Presumably, drugging and raping vulnerable young women is an effective way to get laid. I doubt you'd argue it's the right thing to do.

I only said approaching women in public should not be shamed and there should not be a law against it. I never said it should be done disrespectfully. If I saw an attractive woman around my age wearing a Utah Jazz jersey (super rare in New Orleans), I would approach them and talk with them respectfully. In the back of my mind I have hopes I can form a relationship but that is part of life and I wouldn't jump to that immediately. You and One Brow make it seem that we should be afraid of approaching women in public, ever.

 

[GVC]

I am not sure how I feel about GVC saying he holds me to lower standard

A dick move by me for sure. Appeals to authority that ignore the specifics of the actual arguments made are common (in my experience). I think they're lazy and stupid. I know one brow agrees with this (in general, at least). That you were excited to make this particular appeal to authority, and felt that it justified your stance, without explaining why, led me to dismiss your opinion (or, at least, the way you arrived at that opinion). Without going back and looking at your previous posts in this thread, I recall one or two other posts of yours in this thread that didn't sit right with me for similar reasons.

 

[GVC]

You and One Brow make it seem that we should be afraid of approaching women in public, ever.

You realize I've disagreed with one brow throughout this discussion, right? If anything, this thread has caused me to think I should engage people more in public.

 

[Nightmare]

A dick move by me for sure. Appeals to authority that ignore the specifics of the actual arguments made are common (in my experience). I think they're lazy and stupid. I know one brow agrees with this (in general, at least). That you were excited to make this particular appeal to authority, and felt that it justified your stance, without explaining why, led me to dismiss your opinion (or, at least, the way you arrived at that opinion). Without going back and looking at your previous posts in this thread, I recall one or two other posts of yours in this thread that didn't sit right with me for similar reasons.

When it comes to feminist issues unfortunately quoting women and linking videos to women is often necessary as some people feel being a man invalidates you.

 

[♪alt13]

I would never describe you as a dick, and rarely, if ever, as a douche.

I find the general position of calling for more civility and less brashness in these discussions often indicates a desire to keep the discussions from happening with any serious intent, and this is a position I have associated you with. Also, previously in this thread, you took a statement I had made with a specific reasoning, discarded the reasoning entirely, and asked directly if I was using some other, less honest reason. Both of those behaviors were disingenuous.

Call for civility and less brashness? Surely that is not my general position. The desire to keep these discussions from happening with any serious intent? When I have disagreed with people I have engaged with them directly. I would counter that your decision to address a person rather than their argument is an impediment to having a serious dialogue.

I believe it is you that deletes the reasoning from posts in order to address a single sentence often out of context. If this is something you think me guilty of you will need to be less vague.

 

[freakazoid]

However, I would expect there is a difference in frequency, as you will come across men less often in a rural environment.

Minor detail, right? City street with 100 men compared to a rural street with 10. For the sake of argument, let's assume intoxication % is the same, say 20%. So a woman walks by 20 drunks compared to 2 drunks, but because the % is the same, then the potential for harassment is therefore equal? SMH.

Abstract


Objective

The goal of this review was to determine the direction of associations between SES and health behaviors during the period of adolescence.

Method

We searched the PsychInfo and Pubmed databases for studies that measured the association between SES and cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, marijuana use, diet, and physical activity in adolescents between 10- and 21-years old.

Results

Associations between SES and health behaviors conformed to two patterns. First, low SES was associated with poorer diets, less physical activity, and greater cigarette smoking. Second, there was no clear pattern of associations between SES and alcohol consumption or marijuana use.

Conclusion

Results from this review indicate that, although some associations between SES and health behaviors exist during adolescence, the associations are not as robust as those in adulthood. Efforts to curb poor diet, inactivity, and smoking behaviors should target low SES adolescents, whereas efforts to curb teen drinking and marijuana use may be useful across the SES spectrum.

Well, that certainly proves that the # of crack heads on a city street in Chicago is basically the same as the # of crack heads hanging out in front of Albertsons in Heber City.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe re-read your post.

The one where I said "another right-wing flunky full of bad ideas and mischaracterizations"? You don't see any criticism of her tactics in that?

The only thing she arguably added to the discussion in this thread is the content of hollaback's mission statement.

Agreed. I think we also agree on the effects of any potential legislation, should any be proposed.

 

[One Brow]

video proof?

You'll have to ask them for it.

 

[One Brow]

Can you time stamp where it Christina Hoff Sommers says "street harassment occurs more frequently in economically deprived neighborhoods " far as I know she said the street harassment in the video, I could be wrong.

Since you want me to watch the video again, let's document falsities:
0:43 Claims Hollaback! "does not really want to improve public matters".
1:41 "We had no idea what happened in the other 9 hours 58 minutes"
2:00 Claims the ad-makers manipulatd perceptions about where the harassment took place
2:33 Says the neighborhood affects how threatening harassment is
2:59 Compares catcallers with panhandlers, ministers, and GreenPeace activists
3:39 Misrepresents contents of an editorial in the New York Times
3:54 "Harassment can happen anywhere, but it's far more common in economically deprived neighborhoods" -- what you asked for
4:39 The women being harassed are professionals, the harassers are homeless

I am not sure how I feel about GVC saying he holds me to lower standard,

When he says that I'm not not posting at a high standard, I may disagree, but I do take his opinion seriously. YMMV.

It is funny how every women feminist that doesn't agree with One Brow isn't the good kind of feminist.

It's funny how, even though moevillini doesn't agree with me, I've never said such a thing about her. It's almost as if I draw some sort of distinct between Sommers and moevillini, one that doesn't have anything to do with disagreeing with me. For example, look at a few reasons above. I don't recall moevillini ever posting something that deceptive.

I suppose it's easy enough to claim people are are disagreeing with are dismissing your arguments simply because they disagree. However, what's easy is not always what's correct.

 

[One Brow]

You ignored the context of her statement, which had to do with who would be affected by legislation.

...

I agree, however, that her claim should be challenged, although it seems pretty reasonable (to me, anyway).

The context of the claim does not rescue it's lack of truth, and I don't find the claim to be reasonable at all.

 

[One Brow]

You and One Brow make it seem that we should be afraid of approaching women in public, ever.

I'm not afraid of it, and do it on a regular basis. I make an effort to do it politely and with consideration, in particular, the consideration that many women don't want to be approached, and that I need to accept my error and apologize (non-passive-aggressively) if I misjudge any particular encounter.

 

[fishonjazz]

Omg

 

[One Brow]

Call for civility and less brashness? Surely that is not my general position. The desire to keep these discussions from happening with any serious intent? When I have disagreed with people I have engaged with them directly. I would counter that your decision to address a person rather than their argument is an impediment to having a serious dialogue.

I believe it is you that deletes the reasoning from posts in order to address a single sentence often out of context. If this is something you think me guilty of you will need to be less vague.

The only time I address the person is when that person makes themself, rather than the argument, relevant, and doesn't have the requisite experience to back it up, or in some other way insert themself into the argument. I do challenge white people on how they claim they would react to racist behaviors, because they don't have the experience to back it up. I do challenge men on how they claim they would react to sexist behaviors, because they don't have the experience to back it up. I do challenge straight people on how they claim they would react to homophobic behaviors, because they don't have the experience to back it up.

I'll take you at your word you have not intended to call for more civility and less brashness, and I will interpret any future posts in light of this claim. As for what I claimed you guilty of (and Stoked picked up on the implication in your question, as well), I went over that in detail earlier in the thread, and don't feel the need to hunt down a post you did not bother to respond to previously.

 

[Gameface]

 

[One Brow]

Well, that certainly proves that the # of crack heads on a city street in Chicago is basically the same as the # of crack heads hanging out in front of Albertsons in Heber City.

Because using cocaine in Heber City is so mush less important than using crack, as they do on Chicago streets? Cheap drugs available to the poor are bad, expensive drugs that the wealthy use are acceptable?

For a person that very recently said you were interested in looking at things objectively, your lack of objectivity here is dissonant.