Such a tired and lame excuse, Chance. Women who are covered head to toe are still harassed by strangers -- I know because I wear sloppy t-shirts and jeans every day and yet I still have men pull over to the side of the road to holler out of their cars at me when I'm walking to work or home. I'm so very happy for you that you have the humanity to not pull your dick out every time you see an attractive woman. You are clearly a model of self-restraint.

Grief,!! Where to start ? Okay, full confession, I'm an mtf who used to be a straight guy. So I read that and I recognise the "thoughts" going through his head.

So, yes. Back in the day, I've stared at women, more than I should; not that I am, or indeed, was, proud of that but I do at least understand the impulse. However, most of the time, you take a glance, enjoy that fleeting moment, and move on, emotionally as well as physically. And that's the bit where he trips over, "...when you leave almost nothing to the imagination, it doesn't take much for it to run wild.".

"But no, Mr Chance Noble (btw. Let me guess, that's not your real name). Actually the most boring thing is to leave nothing to the imagination. There's nothing to dream of, it's just in your face and that makes it...mundane.

Beaches are fine, but do you really sit there scraping sand off your tongue ? Really ? Or have you ever been to a strip club ? Are you one of the guys at the front totally amazed that 50% of the population have breasts and have to sit down to wee cos they've not got one of those handy-on-a-picnic things ? It's dull, really mind-crushingly repetitive and dull, except watching the women play the suckers for tips.

And the point is, yes, all guys feel like that..when we're teenagers or of teenage mentality. But most of us learn to control it eventually and become adults.

And funnily enough, when you become an adult, adult women might start treating you with something other than contempt."

So the point of this post is this guy got your goat? Such idiocy is worthy of no more action than the delete button.

This guy sounds like a immature yob in a state of suspended adolescence, spouting semi-intellectual babble likely designed specifically to offend.

If he has ever had a single girlfriend before, I find it tremendously hard to believe.

Oh my GOD.

Okay, so secretly, deep down, women are jealous of other women who get sexually harassed? Yes, that's it, I'm sure! We're just begging to be objectified and treated like garbage! It's our dreams!

He's just another piece of shit.

I didn't realize I had a "snatch" I thought it was a vagina. asshat.

This brings to mind an article I read several months ago and unfortunately cannot find (although very likely it was posted here, before I became a regular reader) about how many women find dresses to be the most comfortable thing to wear in the city during a hot summer, but refrain to do so because of the unwelcome attention they get when they do. Is it fair to ask someone to compromise physical comfort, if that is her idea of it, for her mental well-being (or more pertinently here, should you assume that a woman's outfit represents her intentions to titillate the eye rather than accommodate her own needs? Of course not). What the response suggested to me- that is, once I got past its technical errors that were a reflection of its overall crassness-is that Chance here only underscores the validity of Courtney's piece. It seems to me that many offenders in public transit systems feel like they can get away with their actions-physical or verbal- because they know they cannot be apprehended for it, just as Mr. Noble's comments are to my mind not written in a fashion that a person with a serious eye for public debate would convey them. Thus, though the MTA's campaign to display signs is a welcome advance, it isn't nearly enough. Of course it will be difficult to trace every incident, as the harassment exists on so many levels. But at least it is a step towards consequences for those who let their "imagination run wild" in public, whether on the subway or in an inbox.

Hmmm. I think in order to give dude the thoughtful and thorough response that he deserves I would need to know his IP address.

Oh lord. Thanks for sharing that gem. "hells to the motherfuckin' yeah!!!" ... do you think he ended with that because he thought he made his point?

So in this dude's world, women dress for the sole purpose of pleasing him (not because wearing practically nothing in hot weather is more comfortable for them). And he thinks you should consider it some sort of compliment that he's not having rape fantasies about you.

Overall I found his email very naive and written from a very white-entitled-privileged-dude perspective. I just love it when dudes have the "I'm not sexist/misogynist/etc. but when (insert target) does (behavior), then I just HAVE to (dudely behavior)" mentality. Next!

Mr. Noble:

I have to know: what compelled you to think your letter to Courtney at Feministing was an appropriate response? Did you think you could hide behind your hatefulness and simultaneously accuse her of maintaining of a naive, privileged perspective? Moreover, has it not occurred to you that your own vicious and degrading sexism is rooted in another pernicious form of privilege, or would that be far too threatening to your own masculinity to consider?

Perhaps one day a woman you love will have unwelcome advances thrust upon her; will feel as threatened and unsafe as you make other women feel -- and then you might have the opportunity to explain to her that actually she was asking for it, and suggest that she instead appreciate "action underground." Best of luck achieving a more evolved state of humanity; you've got a long way to go.

YesJess
Washington, D.C.

Of course the guy fails to realize that women have sex drives as well, and don't feel the need to respond or stare at every attractive man or woman they may see. I'm not very familiar with academic theories in terms of Women and Gender Studies, but is there a hypothesis as to why European men have a greater tolerance for feminine sexuality than American men? Obviously, social influences must play a major role. Topless beaches, for example, are not as popular or resort-worthy in the States as they are in Europe. But, is there anyway perhaps that an American feminist organization could launch a campaign that could promote a more European outlook in terms of feminine dress and sexuality? This is beyond the scope of simply acting civil on the subways. What we need is a complete attitude adjustment in the way at which we approach sexuality and dress. Any thoughts?

Despite his srgument being wrong about it being the woman's fault for being harrassed because she dressed "that way", he does have a small point. The question being, what is the point in dressing attractively if it doesn't attract?

http://media.www.unogateway.com/media/storage/paper968/news/2008/08/12/Opinion/Hoping.For.Return.Of.Modesty-3398345.shtml

-Ben

I feel nauseated.

It's so scary to know that there are people, all around us, who think this way.

Libertyburning, why would you jump to the conclusion that an attractively-dressed woman wants to attract you?

I hope Mr. Noble enjoys his new email subscriptions to the Feministing Weekly Reader, NOW's email action alerts, Bitch magazines emails and, especially, Hollaback NYC's email list.

Anyone else have any more ideas?

Ben,

Why dress attractively if not to attract?

1) Well, sometimes I dress attractively for my husband. Or when I was single, for a date. Sadly, I cannot magically teleport myself to a date w/my husband without other men seeing me. Since we don't work in the same part of town, and since I don't change my outfit 9x a day, sometimes that means other men see me dressed up in a way meant to attract my husband.

2) As people have pointed out upthread, you can get sexually harassed no matter what you wear. Out of the three worst instances I went through, twice I was wearing a big trench coat, jeans, and a scarf, and the other time is was dressed attractively (and was clearly underaged).

3) I do not think attractively dressed men are there for me. I do not think they dressed up for me. I may notice, but I do not feel entitled to stare, approach them, talk to them, or comment on their bodies. I do not understand why any man should feel differently than I do. Unless they somehow think they are superior.

4) Sometimes, as people pointed out upthread, the most comfortable clothing to wear in certain weather is somewhat revealing.

5) Why do men harass women in countries where their bodies are completely (or very close to it) covered?

6) What is men's responsibility in all of this?

Re: shaved snatches:

Um, what? Does this guy have some kind of X-ray vision that reveals to him whose crotch is bald on every subway commute?

I do not understand men's application of some kind of agency on the part of women, as though they try to attract men's stares. If anything, I think that whine that a hot woman is "asking" to be ogled just indicates a sense of guilt on men's part. If a dude wants to stare at me, okay, that's his prerogative and there's not much I can do about it -- but why, other than some serious awareness of what a lech he's being, would he try to chalk it up to my inviting him to stare? What does he care, as long as he gets his requisite eyeful of bare skin?

what a filthy, disgusting, nasty pig.

My read on this is that it's basically intended to inflict on you exactly what you were calling out in your op-ed - namely, the harassment of any woman who dares to go out in public. The asshat is pissed because you said dudes shouldn't harass women, so he decided to give 'a taste' of it. It's not intended as serious argument, it's intended to harass and upset you.

Look, I'm no saint. When there's an attractive woman wearing something that shows off her form, I look, provided I can do it in such as way that doesn't make me look like, well, like Mr. Noble.

But I save the ogling for my wife (because it's consensual), and I keep my visual appreciation of others at a look and a smile, because anything more is stepping into that gray area leading toward harassment.

Here's a question for the women on the board: Most of the people I know (both genders) have those "damn, I look good moments" on occasion, and admit to enjoying some reaction from strangers to that effect. But there is clearly a less is more thing going on here. When I'm dressed well, and a soccer mom at the mall gives me a nice smile, I enjoy it, but when the lady in accounting squeezes my bicep and says I must have been working out, I feel kind of creeped out.

So here's the question (finally): is there a good way to acknowledge when a person of the gender you are attracted to is working it, and what do you consider that way to be?

Wow...

MikeT: There isn't a way, in many or most situations. If it's a close friend of yours, you can say "Wow, you look really great today." If you don't know her? If she is a work colleague? Keep it to your damn self.

Additionally, for women with certain attributes, such as my double Ds, there are only a few kinds of shirts I can wear that don't reveal quite a lot about me. When men's fashion requires them to wear pants that reveal every inch of their groin, then we can talk about why women are all "tarted up" on the subway.

Hello. I've never commented on a story here before, but here goes:

I read Rose Gamache's comment and I want to note that the attitude of European men towards women really runs the gamut. I lived in France for a while and I have never in my life felt so afraid to walk alone, even in broad daylight. Men followed me on the street, men pushed me into walls in bars (very common occurrence), men cornered me on the tram and informed me that they were going to come home with me. Complete strangers approached me and attempted to drag me physically into their houses and cars. It was chilling, to be completely honest -- I had never experienced anything like that at home.

Of course, this is not true for all of Europe. After being in France, walking down the street in Barcelona and having a strange man say "nice eyes" with a smile felt downright warm and fuzzy. His tone (non-threatening) was different, but it was the simply fact that he CONTINUED WALKING past that got me. You know, rather than attempting to touch me or kiss me or pin my hands. Small miracles, I know.

And for MikeT, I guess I think that there's a difference between the guy from Barcelona or your soccer mom, and the guys I met in France or your lady in accounting. I don't mind when someone I don't know smiles at me on the street -- the difference between a complimentary appreciation and a sense of entitlement.

And as for the main post? Chance Noble clearly lives in a Chance-centric world where women dress with him in mind and are reduced to one-dimensional figures without other considerations than how he thinks they should respond to his gaze.

I'm going to be moving to NYC in a little while, and will probably be spending a fair amount of time on the subway. I am REALLY not looking forward to having to deal with these guys :/

It seems to me like the entire point of this email was to force you to read his sophomoric porno language, similar to guys who get off flashing their dicks at girls outside of schoolyards. Yugh. Why give him the satisfaction of your attention?

Ben--

I dress attractively for several reasons: I like fashion and clothes, I like feeling good about myself and when I'm wearing something that I look good in, I feel good. I am also required to dress attractively because I'm a theatre actor (along with being a stage manager and a director) and when you audition, you dress well, because they way you look is important in theatre.

I've gotten harassed dressed in jeans and a baggy sweat shirt. I've gotten harassed when I was wearing a fancy dress. When I was in my rehearsal clothes and ran out to grab a bite to eat with my friends. It doesn't matter what I am wearing. It matters that I am a woman, and therefore, to men of that mindset, I am property. I'm fair game. Because of course, I asked for it by wearing something that I feel comfortable and good in. It's not because I'm incredibly hot or have the perfect body. It's just part of being female in America.

When I was in college, I couldn't wear a skirt outside unless I knew I was going to be with my male friends the entire day/night. I got followed home a lot from where I worked as a waitress, I had guys try to get me into their cars. It happens every, constantly, and I finally got to a point where there is no way in hell I am going to let anyone dictate what I do and do not wear. It took me a long time to get to that point, because being 17 and being harassed by a man old enough to be your father, hanging out his car window, saying really filthy things to you, is not a fun experience.

Mike T: I don't mind compliments, as long as they aren't obscene. But generally, I prefer them from people I know, rather than people I don't. If one of my room mates or one of my fellow actors tells me that I look really nice today, I always feel flattered and smile and say thank you, because I know that they're coming from a sweet, genuine place.

When I'm in my small hometown, I don't mind innocent comments from strangers--because I do it sometimes too. If I see a woman with really beautiful hair or a guy with great glasses, I'll tell them so. "I love your hair" or "You've got awesome glasses" but when it comes with blatant staring, touching, cat-calls, or anything crude or creep-a-fying, my hand is on my pepper spray and I am outta there.

I don't think it should matter what a man or a woman wears. Humans, regardless of gender, shouldn't be judged by external appearance, but by how they act and what they say.

Unfortunately, what _should_ be is quite different from our society's norms. People who dress in a way that reveals their secondary sexual characteristics are often perceived by society to be sexual, or out to get sexual attention.
If a man wore skin tight lycra shorts, I'd bet he'd get stares too.

But men, for the most part, wear loose, modest clothing. Suits, shirts, trousers.
Womens' clothing is generally form-fitting and revealing. V-necks, plunges, tight curves and flattering skirts. If a woman wears 'mannish' clothing with ample pockets and a loose fit, then immediately people start with the labels - lesbian, tomboy, etc. I'm not a tomboy - I just hate wearing tight clothes that don't have any damn pockets! But I wear what I want, and I get labeled as such. I just have to deal with it, but it's a lot easier emotionally since the comments I get aren't sexual.

People tend to stereotype based on clothing. If they dress like a police officer, they're probably a police officer. If they dress like an exotic dancer, they might just be an exotic dancer. And so on. Metal-heads wear metal band t-shirts. Punk kids have their dress, as do all the other hipsters. So a woman who wears a wonder-bra, make up and plunging v-neck shouldn't be judged accordingly? I'd think "wow, that woman must really want to be looked at" She might be looking at me and thinking "that poor girl has really let herself go". Someone else might say "what a skank". Someone else might think she was really awesome. ]

I sat next to a man in English class last semester, and he frequently wore very revealing tank-tops, and I could see his nipples. It made me uncomfortable and it was distracting. I didn't stare or say anything, but I wondered why he thought it was appropriate in a learning setting to wear something that showed his nipples.

Either everyone can show their nipples in public, or no one can.

Under no circumstance should anyone have to fear for their body on public transport. Groping should not be tolerated.

But I don't get any cat-calls on the street when I ride my bike modestly dressed. If I'm wearing shorts, someone might say something about my legs ~once a week. But if I'm wearing short-shorts, or a skirt and a tank top or flattering t-shirt, I get sexual comments.
I know that sexual assault and rape occur no matter what women are wearing but it feels really awesome when the comments shift from "damn girl you're foxy" to "damn...she's fast" just because I dressed more modestly.

The most comfortable clothing to wear in the summer heat are loose-fitting dresses or trousers with long sleeves. White is a great color for the sun, too. A recent visit to the Middle East made me realize that the skin-tight clothing I was wearing only clung to my sweaty skin and didn't let me breathe. The Arab men there frequently wear a white dish dash, which looks like a big baggy pillowcase dress. They don't wear anything underneath and apparently they're extremely comfortable in the sun. I think it's unfair that some of the women have to wear black clothing, but then again if you're in a culturally strict family like that, you probably won't be out of the house during the day when it's hot.

I'm aware of the double standard surrounding men and women and breasts (why can't a woman walk around bare-chested, but a man can?) but why can't the answer be that it's unacceptable for anyone to walk around bare-chested in public? Do what you want in your own house/backyard/private area, but at school, at work, on the street, can we have some sort of socially acceptable modesty for men and women?

My partner thinks I look good naked, so does it matter what clothes I wear? I never ask him to dress up sexually to please me, and he doesn't expect me to, either. We want each other to be comfortable. We both have active lifestyles and dress for function, not form.

So, if the double standard surrounding womens' sexuality, privacy and clothing is a social construct and isn't going to change any time soon, then what should we wear right now?

I'm dressing modestly for the following reasons:
1. Because I like it.
2. It's cooler in summer to wear baggy clothing, and I don't get sunburn anymore.
3. Big, deep pockets are really useful.
4. I don't get any cat calls on the street.

Rose - I've gotten plenty of harassment from European men as well as American men. Europe isn't some sort of respectful men zone.

And I really hate when guys claim that we make them stare at and harass us. I get stares and comments and guys trying to touch me when I take the train to work in my work clothes (business casual) which are meant to be non-revealing and "appropriate". It really doesn't matter.

MikeT: Interesting question you pose. Talking from strictly personal experience and preference, I'll try to answer it.

When I wear something that gives me a "damn I look good" kinda day, yes, I do appreciate those glances and comments that reaffirm my attractiveness. For me, non-creepy and actually nice ways of tell me so are a genuine smile with *eye* contact, perhaps a glance or two (the first glance says "there's a human standing in front of me," second glance says, "there's something in front of you worth actually looking at besides (book/paper/etc.)." I also appreciate comments on my clothes (that's a nice shirt, I really like those shoes, etc.).

What I don't like and find creepy and annoying are the creepy stares (and the embarrassed apologetic smiles when caught staring), the not so subtle pickup lines, (you from around here, where did you graduate high school, how old are you, etc.), and the other excrement spewed by men such as Chance Nobel (I'd like to tap that ass, etc.).

This mind you, is speaking for me alone. No idea what others would consider an OK way to show appreciation for someone you don't know. :-)

Joyfuldinosaur, you're still blaming the victim. I deserve to wear what I like to wear that covers all my important parts and not be catcalled. I shouldn't have to dress in a way that YOU think is modest to not be sexually harassed.

Additionally, you completely ignored that many women have noted that we get hollered at ALL THE TIME, not just when we're dressed sexily. The fact of it is that men say "women dress like they want me to say something" to cover up the fact that all they want is to put women in their place.

Joyfuldinosaur, your comment is full of contradictions.
How many times do people have to say it? We are harassed and groped no matter what we're wearing!! Most women on the subway during the work-week are probably traveling to or from their 9-to-5 JOBS, which means they're not dressed like exotic dancers. They're still harassed.

SarahMC,

I never said attract me.

-Ben

Ismone,

you said, "Well, sometimes I dress attractively for my husband. Or when I was single, for a date."

Precisely. That is excatly what comes accross.

-Ben

MikeT, I like to look nice and have pretty clothes. But I don't *need* affirmation from strangers, co-workers or casual acquaintances. If my boyfriend admires what I'm wearing, I appreciate it and it makes me feel good.
I like getting complements from other women; they usually come from friends, family or co-workers. Honestly, most women aren't dressing to impress men. We really DO like the way certain clothes look on us, and don't care how many men we'll attract.

I don't understand why some men feel downright compelled to express their approval of women's looks, though. You don't need to tell random women you appreciate their appearance.

Here's an example of appreciated vs. unappreciated compliments from men...

My co-worker M and I are friendly with one another here in the office. He's married, has twin babies, has dog-sat for me, and is always helpful with IT stuff. He has never made sexually suggestive comments to me, oogled me (to my knowledge) or harassed me in any way. He's professional and fun. If he were to say, "Sarah, cool dress!" without letting his eyes linger on my bod, I'd be totally fine with it. Because he talks to me like a person all the time and never talks down to me or says anything remotely sexist to me.

Then there's this man who I know through work (he's a client we serve on one govt. contract). I see him a couple times a year. He is notorious for slipping his wedding ring off at conferences/conventions, and has been inappropriate with a bunch of women who work on this contract. His vibe is slimy, if you know what I mean. The last time I saw him, he told me he liked my blouse with this smirk on his face. I felt gross. Because I don't even really KNOW that guy, and he always comes off like he's got an agenda. Plus I know he messes around whilst he's on business. He's just a creep and I'd rather he not voice his approval of my wardrobe.

And I just thought of another thing. Once I was standing in front of a man in the grocery store line, and at one point I was just sort of looking around and he said, "You are rockin' those boots!" I said thanks and felt happy. Because he didn't use any sexist or sexual language, didn't leer at me, didn't touch me, and his compliment focused on how well I pulled off my footwear (as opposed to, "You're rockin' that sweater!").

While I would never accuse someone who gets this kind of treatment of "asking for it," I do have trouble sympathizing with any parent who gives their child a name like Chance Noble and then finds he's grown up into a sleazy harasser. Hhhhhhhi mean, what were you expecting when you let him leave the house like that? What'd you think was going to happen?! Am I right, ladies? (expectant chuckle)

Seriously, I can only hope for this asshole's sake that that's only his supercool online alter-ego.

The fine line between harassment and appretiation comes with control. When you are harrassing someone you are attempting to control them. You are attempting to get under their skin and make them feel degraded. It's really all about respect and viewing other people and yourself as a human being and not a sex object. I find that a lot of girls (high school and college age especially) play into the idea that they are sex objects and then react when they are treated as such. Just looking at the advertisments that have been posted on Feministing in the last week we can see that this idea that people are nothing more than a body part or a role is droned into us at a young age. We are surrounded by this propoganda for so long that I find myself having to think about if something should be offending me or not. We should all think about our actions and ask ourselves two questions Does this respect me? and Does this respect those around me? and if either answer is no make adjustments accordingly.

So the Feministing way of fighting online harassment is... to harass back? Obviously the email was idiotic and I'm sure anyone who runs a prominent site like this gets tons just like it. While you do have the right to publish his name and email address, is that really the step we should be taking? Someone like this is not going to be convinced by a flood of angry emails and spam. I think it's just stooping to their level to do something like this.

My email to the bastard:

Chance Noble,

I just read this thoughtful response:

"Dear Courtney,

I read your opinions about the MTA raising awareness about sexual
misconduct on the subways and found it very naive and written from a very
white-middle-class-women-studies-privaleged perspective. You are correct
that women have been dealing with this kind of stuff from guys for years,
but what about how women dress in the subways? Today (after reading your
opinion) while on the subway, I saw a woman sit near me with a very low cut
shirt and very large tits...she looked hot! I totally stared at her tits
any chance I could get...which is probably why she wore the shirt right? I
also see scores of women with those cotton summer dresses on and just a
thong underneath, so you see their asses bobbling around under the skirt.
That sounds like blaming the victim right? Well when you leave almost
nothing to the imagination, it doesn't take much for it to run wild. This
is not to say you whip your cock out at any moment or press your boner on
any tart that wears a hot outfit, but where they "asking for it"? I know
you are probably fuming by now, but from the looks of your picture you
probably don't get sexually harrassed much, so maybe you are jealous of all
of the hot-ass bitches with the big titties, shaved snatches and round
asses that get some action underground.

hells to the motherfuckin' yeah!!!!

Chance Noble"
I am one of one of those "hot-ass bitches with the big titties."

I am a 20 year-old woman, standing at 5'2", with a 23 inch waist, 36 inch hips, and size 34D breasts. I was blessed with a natural hourglass shape which does not require any dieting or excersise regimes. At the risk of sounding overly cocky, I am quite pretty, and I make my living working as a nude model. This job is one that requires a supreme amount of confidence, and it really lowers your inhibitions about nudity, personal body issues, and the like. Since beginning my work as a nude model about 8 months ago, I have become much less concerned (read: restricted) when it comes to the amount of skin that I show. This is a huge change for me, as I spent many years hiding under over-sized sweatshirts and baggy jeans.

You see, when I was 14, I went to my first party, where I also got drunk for the first time. I passed out in a bedroom, and I awoke sometime later to shouting. While I was passed out, one of the 19 year-old boys at the party attempted to rape me. I was saved only because my cousin and her boyfriend chose the 'right' moment to come check on me. I was only in junior high. This incident, combined with physical and emotional abuse in my home, sent me in to a continual pattern of depression, anorexia, and other eating and behavioral issues. I refused all treatment offered by concerned counselors at my school, because I knew my mother would never allow it. I spent years cutting and starving myself, feeling fat, ugly, unwanted, and unloved. At my lowest, I weighed 81 pounds. I made poor choices when it came to whom I dated, and I truly hated myself for years.

Eventually, I overcame my issues. I no longer have body image issues, and I am very happy, comfortable, and confident with my body. For the first time in my life, I genuinely love how I look, and I feel beautiful and sexy. These amazing, new found feelings, paired with the additional comfort and assurance I have gained in myself through my work as a nude model, has finally allowed me the self-assurance necessary to finally wear low cut tops, cute skirts, and the like, without feeling insecure or ashamed of my appearance. Most of the clothing I purchase these days is from Victoria's Secret. I often wear low, V-neck tops, flowing sun dresses, tight jeans, short shorts, skimpy bikinis, and so on. I love my body and I love how sexy and confident I feel whenever I wear clothes that really accentuate my features.

Have you considered that low-cut tops and sun dresses are not worn for your benefit? That they are worn because that is how the wearer feels best, feels sexiest, feels self-assured?

Because I am not fucking asking for anything from you, asshole.

When I see an attractive man in very tight jeans, I may sneak a glance or two at his ass, however I do not stare, because that is rude, degrading, objectifying, and downright inappropriate. I do not feel that it is too much to request when I ask for the same consideration.

Have you ever considered the fact that to a woman, a man who is larger and/or stronger than her, who is staring intently at a part of a her anatomy in a disrespectful, leering manner, can be absolutely terrifying? Do realize that when assholes like you, who cannot control your disgusting, objectifying ways, stare at me like this, I begin to flash back to that night when I awoke to shouting? That my mind begins to race with similar scenarios starring you as the perverted sexual assailant? Stares from creeps like you are enough to send me in to a panic attack.

I hope that this may allow you to reconsider what you are doing, and the reasoning behind it. Somehow, I strongly doubt it, but hey, it's worth a shot, right?

Kayla

Well, Ben, you don't know who an attractively dressed woman might be hoping to attract, so why would ANY man assume that it's him and that she wants his attention?

And dressing nice in the hopes of getting a date is completely different from dressing nicely in the hopes of getting some stranger's hard-on shoved into your back on the Red Line.
Unless you try to pick up women by making suggestive hand motions and whispering filthy demands as they walk by.

Ismone,

you said, "Well, sometimes I dress attractively for my husband. Or when I was single, for a date."

Precisely. That is excatly what comes accross.

-Ben

No, it's obviously not. If you think a woman looks attractive, that's fine. You can think whatever you want. You can fantasize about her to your heart's content. But it stops there. And assuming she's dressed up for every man she sees is stupid. Ismone was dressing nicely for specific men. Not you, not any other random dudes.

Oh, and Courtney...Chance Noble's an idiot and you are a very beautiful woman, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

women also dress in ways that look sexy because they are told practically from birth that they have no worth unless they do so. Advertising, many parents, friends, schoolmates, teachers, employers, co-workers and total strangers repeatedly emphasize that we owe it to the world to look a certain way and that it is a personal failing if we do not (Being told to "smile!" by random idiots on the street is one example of this).

so, many women do it because they feel they have to, because they have heard their entire lives that they must, but it doesn't mean they want attention, comments or staring. It is a double standard, but it is society's double standard, not the individual woman's. Show some respect for the pressure women are constantly under and let up that pressure by not being a jerk about it.

I don't live in a large city (just a small college town that they like to call a city), and me, my friends, and my roommates have all been harassed on the streets and eve on campus. Me and two of my good friends moved into an apartment complex right next to the college. We have to cross a major road to get to campus now though. As soon as we started walking to school we started getting harassed. We are NOT girly girls. We wear the free t-shirts that we get from on-campus events, jeans, and flip-flops. Not revealing in the least. We started to keep track of all of the times we were harassed crossing the street. We separated them into three categories: honks (from passing cars), heckles (such as "yeeeaaahh titties!!!"), and an "other" category for all the other weird shit we'd encounter (like men stopped in traffic who roll down their windows to use cheesy pick up lines). Before the end of our first semester off campus we had accumulated 50+honks, around 40 heckles, and 25 "others." We don't wear clothes that "ask" men to harass us. Even if we did, we don't deserve to be harassed on a fairly regular basis for being college-aged women!

I've found that usually if I'm walking with men, other men tend not to harass me. But one time I was walking down the center of campus with my boyfriend and one of his friends and a guy yelled out of his dorm window "Show me your boobies!!" Again, I was wearing a t-shirt and jeans (and no the t-shirt didn't say "Free show"). My boyfriend and his friend were appalled. They asked me if stuff like that happened often. I honestly had to say yes. It's disgusting that women are forced to deal with harassment on such a regular basis. Thanks for this post! We need to do more to bring an end to this!

SarahMC:

"And I just thought of another thing. Once I was standing in front of a man in the grocery store line, and at one point I was just sort of looking around and he said, "You are rockin' those boots!" I said thanks and felt happy. Because he didn't use any sexist or sexual language, didn't leer at me, didn't touch me, and his compliment focused on how well I pulled off my footwear (as opposed to, "You're rockin' that sweater!")."

Unless the guy was a foot fetishist, then he was just speaking directly to the object of his sexual interests.

Also, this is a somewhat common form of "safe attention" that many men who do feel sensitive to the potential to cause discomfort but still wish to be able to express appreciation for womens appearance will resort to; other examples are "I really think your glasses are cool!", "That jacket is really smart!" and the somewhat more risky and only for use with women you know or work closely with "Hey, did you get a haircut? Looks great!".

The thing is complimenting you on your shoes is no less an objectification than complimenting you on your sweater. This is not to say that it is inherently a bad thing or that it is intrinsically good either. For example: If I were an openly homosexual man and I complimented your appearance/attire, would you be more or less likely to believe that I was genuinely approving on your attire than if I were clearly a heterosexual man using the same words? Do you think other women would have a similar reaction? Do you feel that a homosexual man has better reason to appreciate fashion than a heterosexual one? If so, can you explain why without using homosexual stereotypes?

Are there gross and creepy ways in which the male gaze is used? Damn skippy.

Is most male gaze oppressive? I honestly can't tell you, I depend on you to tell me because I trust that you're perceptions are superior than mine in this. (Superior =/= "perfect")

But I can tell you with all certainty that the same kind of male gaze (meaning the intent) is often overlooked or appreciated sometimes when coming from one male, while denigrated when coming from another. This is sometimes due to the way this gaze is expressed (like boots Vs. sweater or the eloquence of the speaker) or because of innate attractiveness of the person doing the gazing.

As a socially awkward male it can be frustrating because there are very few acceptable ways to express interest in a female (or male for that matter) who you wish you ask out for a date or whatever. Now I've seen it expressed here and elsewhere that it's never Ok to flirt with a colleague, but let's be honest here: Where else do you meet people? I don't drink, don't go to church, etc. I think this must be true of many many people because nearly everyone I know has met at least half of their serious partners via work.

And while I'm generally afraid to flirt, women are usually conditioned not to.

I'm not speaking up for the guy writing this letter. He's a douche looking for trouble. But I see a trend in broad condemnation of a behavior on this, and other, boards which is not congruent with the real world as I have observed it.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should leave our minds open to the possibility that not all harmless compliments are truly harmless and not all flirting is harmful.

p.s. Not saying you were saying it is, just that his kind of got lumped in thematically with the first couple of paragraphs which were a response to your post.

SarahMC & Genevieve,

If the women dress for "specific men", then the men not knowing which one they dressed for should not exclude themselves to the benefit of the other men.

-Ben

Re: dressing attractively vs dressing to attract

I'm a man. I dress to look nice. I feel cool when I where a favorite shirt of pair of shoes. Usually whether or not I will be attracting a someone or sending a message to the wrong kind of person never enters my mind. Women don't get to do that - that's the whole problem.

Women are under a lot more pressure to be "attractive" than men are. Even in situations where men are expected to dress for the occasion, job interview for example, it's more about dressing appropriately, not attractively.

Dear Chance

How a woman dresses is irrelevant. Harassers will find a reason to harass regardless of what a person is wearing. You're still treating a person like their genitals are all they amount to.

She probably wasn't thinking of you when she dressed herself that morning. You know your doing something wrong there, and trying to justify it.

My imagination is absolutely disgusting. I have a really sick, perverted mind. That said, thinking a person is hot doesn't give me a sense of sexual entitlement over them. I think you should reconsider between you and Courtney who is privileged.

People of all types get sexually harassed, regardless of your opinion of them. Being treated like an object is not a compliment. Sounds more like you have a problem with being called on your bad behavior, as you need more excuses to refuse responsibility over yourself. personally, I am not upset by your email. It's hard to get upset at people you pity.

"If the women dress for "specific men", then the men not knowing which one they dressed for should not exclude themselves to the benefit of the other men."

What? If I'm heading out for a date with a specific guy, every guy from where I am to where I'm meeting said specific guy should not "exclude" themselves from making their interest in me known? Really? Women are just a form of property, then, huh? When women cannot walk (or ride the subway, or ride their bike, whatevs) from one place to another without a guy thinking he has the right to their bodies, then there is a big problem. And we have that big problem.

I see attractive guys; just because I see them doesn't mean I have the right to yell obscene things at them, or presume that they've made themselves attractive for my pleasure. A quick glance at them, a silent acknowledgement that the guy is attractive, and I'm on my way. Because that is respectful. Because I understand that the guy standing three feet away from me had no idea about my existence when he chose his work out regime or that shirt. That walking up to him and grabbing his package or staring at it would be a gross violation of his integrity and would be very, very wrong. And that is where there seems to be a miscommunication. No one is asking you to suddenly not be attracted to or notice the attractiveness of women on the street. But there is a profound difference in noting that attraction, and then being a sleaze because of said attraction.

And as others have noted repeatedly, it matters not what the women are wearing; if they are wearing jeans with a baggy tee shirt or if they're wearing a summer dress or anything else. Because too often it isn't about attraction; it is about power and intimidation.

Also, often, I dress the way I dress for me. I wear the cute clothing for me. I like the way I look in jeans. I like the way I look in skirts. I love my tube tops in the summer because I love the feel of the sun on my shoulders (and it helps me freckle somewhat evenly). I wear these things for my personal pleasure, and more often than not no one else's. I feel good if a friend thinks I look pretty, but that isn't why I pick out the clothing I pick out. I wear what I like, and it sucks when someone else takes ownership of that fact and makes it about him -as in, "She must be wearing that to get attention from me". I'm not, so don't think I am. Put the sex-laden comment back in the box, and don't stare at me like I'm a piece of meat. Casual glances? Cool. Long drawn out stares designed to make me uncomfortable? Offers to sex me up? Asking me to accompany you somewhere? Honking and shouting about the titties? Very much the opposite of anything resembling appropriate.

"The thing is complimenting you on your shoes is no less an objectification than complimenting you on your sweater."

I think it is. Too often, "nice sweater" doesn't really mean "nice sweater"; it means "nice boobs housed inside said sweater". Sometimes it doesn't. I have sweaters I get a lot of compliments on (oddly, never the ones I buy myself) from guys and girls. But there is a tone to their nice sweater which indicates they are complimenting my taste, and thus me as a person, as opposed to complimenting my boobs -which I really had little control over. Boots, unless there is a sexual fetish going down, really is less about my feet -which again, little control over- and my taste or my attitude in said boots. And that, for me, is all the difference.

Zardoz-
Exactly. Men can run around all they want in shorts and vee-neck tee shirts and not be treated as a sexual plaything. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. Its not about what you wear or where you wear it, it's about the expectation that women are fair game for whatever purpose some creep chooses. Case in point- after leaving an Ani DeFranco show the other night, cars full of boys drove by shouting all sorts of absurd things. Many of the women at the show were lesbians, so clearly the propositions were not welcomed by them. A woman's sexuality is not considered when men cat call women- we're not being asked if we want to participate in consensual sexual activity when the guy shouts at us on the street. It's not about what we wear; several posts above have made that abundantly clear. It's about the fact that we have two body parts men do not have- and that we are reduced to those parts for advertising on bus terminals, commercials, magazines, tv shows, music, movies, and clothing.

logrus, it's different when the comment is coming from a homosexual man because it does not carry the implied sexual threat, not to mention that if you know that the person commenting is gay, you probably know them pretty well and aren't likely to get offended.

the rule of thumb is pretty fucking simple and i haven't seen any women have a problem with it: if you don't know someone, DON'T COMMENT ON THEIR APPEARANCE. if you're at work, DON'T COMMENT ON OTHER'S APPEARANCE.

if you're some lonely dude trying to meet people, do it in appropriate arena, not on the street or at work. sign up for match.com or something if you're too shy to go to a party and meet new people.

Here is the problem with modesty.

It's always relative. Once you start having women cover themselves up, it simply creates an illusion of eroticism for the hidden bits.

Modesty does not cause women to be more respected. Modesty is a response to a lack of respect. That's not the same thing. Look at the breast-feeding debacle. That's what women get for fucking covering up our breasts all our our lives? Fuck you.

This is the type of shit that pushes me toward being a radical. I'm really losing so much respect for a lot of my fellow humans over this issue.

I mean, with all of the fucking porn available you'd think males would be over this shit by now? What's it going to take? Seriously, guys who like to gawk at women. I'm asking. What's it going to take?

How about excluding yourself for the benefit of the woman, Ben?

Sigh. I am so fucking sick of it that human beings cannot get over other people's clothes for long enough to treat them like human beings. Is it really that hard to respect people? Like, admire their looks, and RESPECT them? In the same way you'd probably respect a homeless person in spite of what rags s/he was wearing? (Isn't a homeless man wearing rags "asking for it" when he gets beat up or killed? Oh, I forgot. Only women or gays or male cross-dressers are asking for it.)

Obviously treating others decently is too much to ask of the human race.

In any case, I'll wear whatever the fuck I want. It's my body, nobody else's. I own it and I dress it. And my dressing nice is not an indication that "I want to look attractive because why else would I dress up; why don't women all just wear Amish dresses and burkas if they're really not attention whores." Or maybe I do want to look attractive. But unfortunately, my wanting to look attractive is not an invitation to you to touch me or get near me or even speak to me.

The problem here is that male harassers think they've got open invitation. They think they've got access to a dressed-up female body simply because of the fact that she's dressed up.

Sorry, guys, but you haven't got access to a thing. Women don't owe you a goddamn thing. Women do not exist for you to objectify them and ignore their feelings and humanity.

My Short Skirt
(from The Vagina Monologues)

My short skirt
is not an invitation
a provocation
an indication
that I want it
or give it
or that I hook

My short skirt
is not begging for it
it does not want you
to rip it off me
or pull it down.

My short skirt
is not a legal reason
for raping me
although it has been before
it will not hold up
in the new court.

My short skirt, believe it or not
has nothing to do with you.

My short skirt
is about discovering
the power of my lower calves
about cool autumn air traveling
up my inner thighs
about allowing everything I see
or pass or feel to live inside.

My short skirt is not proof
that I am stupid
or undecided
or a malleable little girl.

My short skirt is my defiance
I will not let you make me afraid
My short skirt is not showing off
this is who I am
before you made me cover it
or tone it down.
Get used to it.

My short skirt is happiness
I can feel myself on the ground.
I am here. I am hot.

My short skirt is a liberation
flag in the women’s army
I declare these streets, any streets
my vagina’s country.

My short skirt
is turquoise water
with swimming colored fish
a summery festival
in the starry dark
a bird calling
a train arriving in a foreign town
my short skirt is a wild spin
a full breath
a tango dip
my short skirt is
initiation
appreciation
excitation.

But mainly my short skirt
and everything under it
is Mine.
Mine.
Mine.

—Eve Ensler, 2001

katie80andstuff:

"logrus, it's different when the comment is coming from a homosexual man because it does not carry the implied sexual threat, not to mention that if you know that the person commenting is gay, you probably know them pretty well and aren't likely to get offended."

Can you tell me the history of the A-Line dress? What year did Slouch Hat first appear commonly in women's fashion, and why? You might be able to, but it's unlikely. Sexual orientation does not preclude an interest in fashion or design, and your perception of a threat should be on a case by case basis. Treat people as individuals, just as I assume you would like to be treated.

"the rule of thumb is pretty fucking simple and i haven't seen any women have a problem with it: if you don't know someone, DON'T COMMENT ON THEIR APPEARANCE. if you're at work, DON'T COMMENT ON OTHER'S APPEARANCE."

Communicating in all caps is meant to imply shouting. Are you internet-shouting at me? Why? Do you lack the ability to engage in civil discourse or do you feel that just because you can be shirty to someone then you should be?

Also you've either skipped it or decided to ignore it when someone in this thread, the woman I was speaking to as a matter of fact, stated explicitly that she received a compliment from a man in a grocery store and appreciated it. I believe the implication is that he was a stranger.

"if you're some lonely dude trying to meet people, do it in appropriate arena, not on the street or at work. sign up for match.com or something if you're too shy to go to a party and meet new people."

There is a difference between being lonely and socially awkward. While I freely admit that I am socially awkward, I am also very seldom lonely. I'm patient, and generally very nice and considerate, and have been told many many times by women whom have asked me out that "Why didn't you notice me when I was flirting with you?" or variations of that theme. It's part of my awkwardness that when someone is coming on to me I usually don't realize it until it becomes very overt, I just assume they are being nice to me until they (as has happened) come over to "hang out" and bring an over-night bag. I do not "flirt" with co-workers, I think I indicated this pretty clearly but I'm guessing you were in a hurry to respond in a condescending and negative manner to me so you overlooked actually reading all of my post.

What I did indicate is that I have observed a lot of office flirting and how often the same kind of stuff is perceived in wildly different ways based on who is doing the flirting/gazing. One reason I see this a lot is because since I do not come on to my co-workers I'm often in the role of "office buddy" or women assume I'm gay, even when I've indicated otherwise (and I don't consider myself effeminate at all) so I see and hear the private reactions to these acts.

Good looking/charming guys are "sweet/nice" and the guys who are neither are "creepy/gross". Meanwhile the intent of either party is the same. Sometimes it is an expression of sexual interests and sometimes it is just some person trying to make another person feel good through what seems, to them, the most obvious means.

So one more time in case it was ambiguous: I agree with women when they say that most male gaze is oppressive, or harmful to the psyche. But I would put forth that we should not be so broad in condemnation or generalizations of all appearance based attention or flirtation any more than we should accept as benign some forms of attention that might seem innocuous (like complimenting shoes or a wristwatch, even).

Actually, Ben has a point. If attractiveness has positive externalities -- the attractive person feels good about being attractive, and makes other people who see him/her feel good -- then you can't exclude certain people from benefiting from the "public good," as it were.

Beauty really does come down to basic economics.

I am so fucking sick of this.

If I'm wearing a skirt and heals, I'm a giant slut who deserves to be harassed because men are children who just.can't.help.themselves.

If I wear "modest" or unattractive clothes, I'm a sexless prude who offers up exactly nothing for men to consume, and therefore am completely worthless, non-existent, and dehumanized...and deserve to be harassed.

If I wear baggy "comfortable" clothes, I'm a big fat dyke eschewing gender norms who - you guessed it! - deserves to be harassed, sexually and otherwise.

Going back to the first example, I really, really LOVE hearing anti-feminists whine that women force men to harass them because men are animals who are incapable of controlling their hands, eyes, and dicks, while at the same time claiming that men are also physically and intellectually superior beings that run the world because they're more deserving of it. You can't have it both ways, guys. You cannot have all of the power, but none of the responsibility. If you think you deserve your control, start acting like you actually have some.

When will these harassment apologist pieces of shit realize it's a NO FUCKING WIN situation for women? The only way women can stop male harassment is to stop existing in the public sphere. The only way men can stop male harassment is simply to STOP FUCKING HARASSING WOMEN. Women cannot control men's behavior and it's ridiculous to ask them to.

Much of this can be boiled down to one simple fact: clothes the patriarchy demands women wear to be accepted, appreciated, and considered worthwhile are also, ironically, justifications for rape and harassment. It's fucking bullshit.

I wrote a blog post on street harassment that I think readers of this thread might really appreciate:

http://kendallmck.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/dear-men-of-new-york/

And for the record: on the day I was sitting on a bench reading The Onion in Union Square park, and this giant pig of a man hovered over me, stared at my tits for 3 minutes, and then hissed "how much do you charge when you whore yourself out at the whorehouse, you fucking slut?" prompting me to immediately burst into tears and remain that way for the rest of the afternoon...

...I was wearing jeans, sneakers, and my boyfriend's oversized black t shirt. No makeup.

Oh, and just because you're not in a city doesn't mean you don't get harassed. When I'm back in CA, I get holla'd at every goddamned day IN MY FUCKING CAR. In traffic, at stoplights, in parking lots...whenever and wherever men can make it happen, they do. The sad fact remains that women in public, in any sense of the word, are completely fair game.

I know this is off-topic a little bit, but can someone point me to the campaign in Boston? I might not be good at Googling, but I couldn't find anything about it.

More on-topic, that is a disgusting letter, and I agree with Cait, who pointed out that he was trying to do over email what harassers do on the subway.

As for what Joyfuldinosaur said, while reading her comment, I agreed with parts of it. I hate that men are allowed to walk around in public without shirts on because it makes me uncomfortable, not because women are not allowed to the same. I wish that no one was allowed to deliberately show their nipples in public for an extended period of time (breastfeeding doesn't count, since the intent is to feed a child not to be shirtless). Sure the society we live in has made us feel this way toward our own bodies, but if the society is going to say that nipples are bad, then all nipples should be bad.

Also, I personally feel more comfortable wearing loose-fitting clothing and wearing crewneck shirts as often as possible, but it is men like "Chance" that make me feel extremely nervous when dressed any other way. I try to dress to blend in and not be noticed by ANYONE but especially men, but I don't think this is healthy and I don't think anyone should HAVE to dress a certain way in order to be respected as a human being. Even if I am wearing baggy clothing, I don't feel any safer, if anything I feel like baggy is bad because it can be more easily removed. I understand that it is not a woman's responsibility to dress in any specific way; rather it is everyone's responsibility to behave in a way that doesn't make her feel harassed.

i didn't respond to the stereotype of gay men being lovers of fashion because it is just that- a stereotype. it has nothing to do with why comments from strange men are threatening-- there is an implicit sexual threat veiled in every honk, each catcall, the whispered filth. it takes a lot of unlearning to confront strangers when you've been constantly socialized to believe that confrontation could lead to an assault or worse. if the comment is coming from a gay man, this implied threat is lessened (though not removed entirely).

sorry for the e-shouting, it wasn't directed at you personally, just meant to make a point about random idiots i have been dealing with in droves recently. not to mention it really is a good rule of thumb.

and yes, there are normative structures that benefit attractive people, but for me it makes no difference whether it's a bum catcalling me or a male model. it's disrespectful. i take your point about broad generalizations that blur distinctions, and perhaps you should as well. maybe it looked like someone appreciated a "compliment" from a good looking office mate, but inside it's very possible that they are offended and hurt by it. you say the intentions are the same, and it only matters whether the person is attractive or not... seems like a sweeping generalization to me.

I'm tired of these conversations melting into how hard or easy it is to flirt or meet people on the street.

The vast majority of harassment is exactly that---crude, crass intimidation, which has little bearing on how the woman behaves or dresses.

Why the conversational drift toward the teeny number of flirty comments that sometimes get miscommunicated or misinterpreted--that is where one person was simple giving a respectful compliment? It's like when we talk about date rape, the conversation almost always drifts into the realm of false accusations. Frustrating.

Why doesn't someone write a community post on the perils or pleasures flirting and stranger compliments?

Because, SarahMC, the woman isn't even relevant. We aren't talking about treating each other with respect, we're talking about male privilege and how Ben is upset that we're suggesting that he not exert control over every piece of pretty property he sees walking around outside.

katie80andstuff:

I don't disagree with your sentiment, and specifically have stated that I acquiesce to the opinions of the females who are subject to the majority of these comments or looks. I merely suggest avoiding generalizations that don't match up with actual experiences.

I certainly did not mean to imply that my experiences represent the totality or even the majority, but they are still an honest appraisal and accounting of my observations, and things that have been communicated to my by females I work/have worked with.

The gamut of human communication is too complex to relegate to broad sweeping guidelines that tend to marginalize the individual ability to perceive nuance and intent. While guiding and educating people in power away from forms of expression which are implements of oppression we should not neglect allowing the individuals on both sides ability to interpret for themselves what each act of communication means or is intended to mean. Just as art is always open for interpretation by the viewer so is interpersonal communication, but this does not mean the viewer is always, or even often, correct in their assumptions.

The same intellect and dedication to a logical ethos that forces me to choose egalitarian and feminist principles (to me, one and the same) also forces reject the notion that all workplace romance = "bad". People must be given the freedom to reject advances so that they may also be free to accept them.

"Actually, Ben has a point. If attractiveness has positive externalities -- the attractive person feels good about being attractive, and makes other people who see him/her feel good -- then you can't exclude certain people from benefiting from the "public good," as it were."

How hard is it to understand the vast difference between seeing someone and finding them attractive and seeing someone and talking to them about their tits, their ass, what sex positions you would LOVE to try out on them, etc?

I know of no one who is saying, "Hey, if you find me attractive, you're a pig". I find many people aesthetically attractive, men and women (and finding someone attractive doesn't always mean you are attracted to them). But there is a big difference between finding someone attractive and harassing them. And the rule of thumb in these situations -if you (universal "you" going down) REALLY don't know what comes off as harassment and what comes off as a compliment- is to quickly glance and keep your mouth shut. Because if you really don't know why long, drawn out stares and comments like "nice tits" or "I'd love to do XY&Z to that" is offensive, harassment, and just plain creepy, then you don't get it and it is better for the rest of the world if you just don't try to "compliment" the ladies who made the unfortunate mistake of crossing your path. End of lesson, do not cross "Go", do not collect $200.

SMC-
"... anti-feminists whine that women force men to harass them because men are animals who are incapable of controlling their hands, eyes, and dicks, while at the same time claiming that men are also physically and intellectually superior beings that run the world because they're more deserving of it."

OMG, hell yes. Never heard it said better.

Ben,

Wow. Way to miss the point. I noticed that you took what I said out of context, and didn't answer any of my questions.

Thanks to Genevieve and Sarah MC for having my back, but I'll say it myself too, so that it penetrates.

When I dress attractively with men in mind (sometimes I dress attractively because, I like how I look, fancy that), I have specific men in mind. Of course other men will see me. No problem. But if they ASSUME that because I am attractively dressed, I am attempting to ATTRACT them, they are out of their heads. They're just strangers on the street. It isn't about them. Let me repeat this again, because you clearly missed it in my first point. I do not assume that specific men are dressing up for ME. Why should they assume the reverse?

You never asked about my three instances of harassment, but I'll tell you anyways. The first one, where I was "attractively dressed" I was 16 and looked about 12, and a middle-aged man sexually propositioned me. Even though I looked like a CHILD. The second one, when I was all trench-coated out, involved a man who screamed "you're fucking dead" at me. No, I did not know him; no, I had not done anything that warranted screaming at. The third, also in a trench coat, involved two men following me and acting as though they were preparing to attack me.

Now let's think. Pretend people who wear attractive clothes mean to attract attention. WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS WANT TO ATTRACT THAT KIND OF ATTENTION!

Seriously, where is the hanky code that says "short skirt = death threat" because the last time I read Emily Fucking Post, that wasn't in there. Nevermind that I wasn't even wearing a short skirt. Yelling profanity, sexual comments, and threats at people is NEVER socially acceptable. Get it through your head. That isn't even attraction. It's a power trip.

Doing a little online research, I found out he works for this company:
their old website was cached for last week. The new correct site is below.

https://www.wgeld.org/customerservice/index.cfm?module=FAQ&CFID=95367&CFTOKEN=70504237

Feel free to email customer service and forward his innappropriate email (from work!) along. Ah, mysogynists never think ahead....too filled w/ hatred to realize they can be tracked down.

What on earth? Between this thread and the Community post re: DD+ size breasts, I am simply gobsmacked.
We have women telling their stories about being reduced to their body parts and treated poorly by people who make incorrect, sexist assumptions about them based on their looks. We have women writing, in detail, about the difference between admiring someone's physique and harassing someone.
And STILL, doods are insisting that our bodies are public property and we can't stop them from liking what they like. NOBODY'S GONNA HAVE YOU ARRESTED FOR LIKING BIG BREASTS, ASSHOLES. Did you even read half of these comments? God.

Logrus: I'm dating a couple of guys who could be described as kinda nerdy or socially awkward, and not to toot my own horn but I'm a pretty attractive lady. You know how they won me over? By appreciating my intellect. They found me interesting, entertaining, etc. and the feeling was mutual.

Now that we've gotten to know each other, they comment on my body, my style, and how attractive they find me, in addition to continuing to appreciate my personality. See how that works?

I can't belive this concept is really that hard. Intellect first. Then physical stuff in addition. And yes, that makes street flirtation pretty hard. So?

OK. as a woman who dates women, I have never jeered, honked my horn, yelled or whistled at, nor have I made inapropriate comments about or to, nor have I "tripped onto", grabbed or poked a woman I did not know because I thought she was attractive. These things don't work, jackass, and it's not rocket science. It's degrading, it's harrassement, and it's just utterly unacceptable. not macho, not cute, not effective in getting numbers. it's a clear indication of your immaturity, lack of any redeemable social skills, and your ignorance.

Grow up you unimaginative, socially innate, pathetic fuck.

"I really, really LOVE hearing anti-feminists whine that women force men to harass them because men are animals who are incapable of controlling their hands, eyes, and dicks, while at the same time claiming that men are also physically and intellectually superior beings that run the world because they're more deserving of it. You can't have it both ways, guys. You cannot have all of the power, but none of the responsibility. If you think you deserve your control, start acting like you actually have some."
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
I am so fed up with that attitude. I refuse to be the guardian of their goddamn morality, and always get cast as the responsible sane adult (it's my fault for being too attractive!) in that situation, while at the same time being treated like some brainless fool who can't make decisions about every aspect of the rest of my life. FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

exelizabeth_redux:

Do you see anything in any of my posts to indicate that I feel otherwise, or did you mean to address that to someone else?

1) I don't flirt, at work. Something I think you would have gotten since you commented on social awkwardness and it was part of that paragraph.

2) I've not one single time defended comments about the body of another person. Not once. I did reference how some men will compliment hairstyle as a semi-covert/safe way to compliment a woman's appearance.

3) I've not once said anything in support of approaching strangers, and my only comment on it tied in to how sometimes a man will make a seemingly innocuous comment which is not actually so innocuous. This was spurred on by SarahMC's mention of receiving a compliment from a stranger. My response had nothing to do with him actually being a stranger, but on the ambiguous nature of the compliment.

So, were you talking to me? Please explain to me how my statements have anything to do with you basically calling me clueless "I can't believe this concept is really that hard."

I can't believe reading comprehension is really that hard, yet here we are.

Ismone,

You said, "When I dress attractively with men in mind (sometimes I dress attractively because, I like how I look, fancy that), I have specific men in mind. Of course other men will see me. No problem. But if they ASSUME that because I am attractively dressed, I am attempting to ATTRACT them, they are out of their heads."

I'm curious to know how the "specific men" know if they are the chosen ones for whom you have dressed for. Would they have to be mind readers? But this is all very contradictiory because if your dressing for a "specific men" group then the way you dress amounts to nothing more than a uniform to attract a certain type, yet if you wear a whore's uniform, some maybe, some maybe not.
-Ben

Logrus, I had not entertained the possibility that my complimenter was a foot fetishist. That's certainly a possibility. But the compliment came off as genuine because of his tone of voice, his facial expression, and how he expressed himself. These are things that are hard to explain over the Internet, but it's a You Know It When You See It type situation.

I would feel better about a compliment from a gay man because I could trust that he didn't have hidden motives of a sexual nature. Though gay men can be just as hurtful and objectifying as straight men and other women when they make inappropriate remarks about your body.

I'm so tired of the internet sometimes. I'm not big on email, but I frequent chat rooms (specifically role playing games chat rooms, i.e., chat rooms that have nothing to do with sex) and get bombarded with PMs like this simply for having put "female" in the gender field:

the_best_fever: A role play

My profile could not possibly be less welcoming to such PMs. I write that I only play straight men (because I'm the sort of person that makes one character and attaches to it, and that character happened to be a man), that I will under no circumstance play a different role for anyone, that I don't tolerate unsolicited sexual PMs and will post them in public if I get them, etc., etc., but I still get a fair number of PMs like that daily. And when I say anything about it, I get much more criticism for daring to put "female" in my profile than the offenders could ever get. It's not my fucking job to make sure men don't act like I logged into chat to help them with their ill-written fantasies. And of course, when I respond negatively to someone going "show me your tits", I get called a slut and a whore. . .because I won't welcome their sexual requests. Huh.

Oops, it didn't post the whole PM.

you are a young beautiful lady and having dinner at a restaurant with your bf .i am a influential person having some dealing with my friends their .while moving out i see you and get much impressed by your ravishing beauty .i cant resist my self and kiss u hard mauling your breasts in front of all .my men keep your bf on gunpoint and then i leave .you are looking angry .. after few months you come for teaching in a college and stunned while looking at me as a student their

BEN,

BECAUSE THEY KNOW HER! BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE REALLY FUCKING OBVIOUS.

god. what is so hard about this? this isn't about reading minds. if i'm on a date with a woman and she's dressed nice, i can safely assume that it's for (a) her to feel go going out and (b) my benefit. in that order... if i see a woman on the street, dressed really nice, i can rest assured that no matter whose benefit it's for, it's certainly not mine!

a story: i am currently a graduate student at a friggin' enormous university, so big i have to park in goddamned timbuktu and then walk to the building where i attend and teach classes. recently, while walking from my car to school, while wearing a strappy sundress and sandals of some sort (it's 120 degrees here in the summer, fer chrissakes!), some ultra-classy dudes driving a dump truck decided to honk and shout at me as i walked down the street. i flipped them off, because this happens to me all the time, and i just didn't feel like ignoring it that day. (on the same walk, i've also had a man expose himself at me, and gotten literally countless disgusting comments and catcalls out of cars.)

all of a sudden, a familiar voice behind me says, "you were pretty fast with that finger there."

it was my professor, who also happens to be the director of my college. who happened to be walking a few paces behind.

ohhhh, i just wanted the earth to swallow me whole.

let me spell it out for any remaining tools like chance: glancing at me, fine. noticing my clothes/body/makeup/awesome hat/awesome shoes/awesome what-have-you....also fine. i'm not even skanked out by well-mannered flirting (emphasis on "well-mannered") or a genuine compliment. (one time, on the same stretch of street, a man came up behind me on a bicycle and said to me, "i don't want to offend you, but i have to tell you, you have beautiful legs." as i am a runner, i eat that up like candy, because i'm damn proud of my sexy, long, beautiful, muscled, FAST legs and what they can do. i said, "thank you." then he kept RIGHT ON GOING. that is not offensive to me.) where i ***am*** offended is when the glancing becomes overt staring, or i'm expected to return a compliment with anything beyond a courteous "thank you", or when someone thinks that because i'm pretty that i must be just dying to hear about their masturbatory fantasies (trust me: i'm not interested in where you wish you were sticking things), or when someone assumes because of what i'm wearing that i'm, well, anything, and most especially, when someone invades or threatens to invade my personal space.

chance, and any other tools out there, please know: there is an order-of-magnitude difference between finding someone attractive and being harassing. being hit on by someone i'm not interested in isn't harassment. when it becomes harassment is when i politely decline, and the advances don't stop. and chance, i have the feeling most of the women you encounter are indeed politely declining.

though, chance, i think if i saw you coming, courtesy be damned, i'd get my baseball bat.

btw, what the fuck is a whore's uniform?

i mean, really, reading through this is making me sick. i'm a man... i love women... i think many women and many men are quite attractive. yet, for some reason, i don't find it hard to distinguish between being respectful and being abusive. oh my. am i psychic? no... because it's really not. that. hard.

i might, if i'm particularly struck by the effort a person has put into his/her outfit, say something complementary. that's very different from a come-on... however, i can rest assured that no woman (or man) i don't know has dressed in order to please me today. it's really common sense.

is that clear enough, ben?

Doing a little online research, I found out he works for this company:
their old website was cached for last week. The new correct site is below.

https://www.wgeld.org/customerservice/index.cfm?module=FAQ&CFID=95367&CFTOKEN=70504237

Feel free to email customer service and forward his innappropriate email (from work!) along. Ah, mysogynists never think ahead....too filled w/ hatred to realize they can be tracked down.

Not so fast. I did the exact same thing using his email address. I assume you believe that since it ends in @exit3.com, that's the company he works for. Not necessarily - exit3 is the internet account division of that gas and electric company. If you go to www.exit3.com this is pretty apparent, unless I'm seriously missing something.

It's the same thing as assuming someone who has an @aol.com email address works for AOL, so let's not fire up the torches just yet.

Also, his email address isn't registered with Facebook or MySpace, and there are 191 Chance Nobles on FB, so uh...keep digging ladies.

GOD. AUUUGH. Things like the views SO CASUALLY AND COMFORTABLY expressed in this thread are EXACTLY what reminds me how important RADICAL feminism is. I am lucky enough to be surrounded by people in my daily life who don't constantly remind me of how dire the situation really is, so it's easy for me to envision myself kind of as a congenial moderate feminist of sorts. But stuff like this, goddamn, I just can't even begin -- this is the kind of stuff that really drives it home to me that women are under *constant psychological attack* in this goddamned society. God. It makes me so, so angry.

Let me break it down really simply for those of you who have yet to understand:

I SHOULD BE ABLE TO WALK TO THE GODDAMNED HARDWARE STORE UNEVENTFULLY. I should be able to run out for five minutes to grab some milk and bread from the store down the block and have THAT be IT. THIS is what male privilege is: that you can go about your daily lives unmolested and think that this is TOTALLY UNREMARKABLE. I swear to god, I would be SO HAPPY if I could just walk to damn SCHOOL without having to be in a constant state of tension, being "on my guard," and fending off leers and comments and propositions and even demands when ALL I WANT TO DO is go buy some damn milk or go meet with a professor. And guess what? The fact that just my mere EXISTENCE in a public space is a dangerous and tense event is YOUR FAULT, you men who think I am there for your viewing pleasure, you TOTAL STRANGERS who interpret all of MY actions as somehow directed towards YOU. I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU!!! Leave me the hell alone!

This just drives home to me how very necessary capital-F Feminism still is and will be for a long time. Believe me, I hope for the day when Feminism is no longer necessary, because on that day (but not before) I can leave my house and go about my daily business like like a normal damn person.

"I'm curious to know how the "specific men" know if they are the chosen ones for whom you have dressed for. Would they have to be mind readers?"

OR, and more plausibly, women who dress for "specific men" are dressing for people like (1) their date, (2) their boyfriend, or (3) their husband. "Specific men" not being a group of men, but individual men who were dressed for at different times; ergo, a person who has had more than one boyfriend over their lifetime would probably have dressed up for "specific men".

Also, guess what? I have a really pretty summer dress. It is pretty revealing. I WEAR IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT. End of story. Fuck off.

Ben,

I can understand how acquaintances might be confused. (If I showed up to a party, before my married days, dressed nicely. Maybe my usual friendliness might be taken as flirting. Maybe they would reasonably think I was attracted to them, or wished for them to be attracted to me.)

But this is a post about a SUBWAY. No one should think that a stranger, on public transit, has chosen their attire with them in mind. That would be, as a good friend would say, crazypants. A better way of telling, on a SUBWAY whether another person is attracted to you or just plain interested in your company in a non-sexual way is to see if they notice you/smile at you, or respond if you make a general comment, or respond if they talk to you.

So, to summarize:

1) Sometimes women like to look attractive for OURSELVES.
2) Even if we do want to look attractive for someone else, it is someone we already know.
3) Strangers, therefore, should not think that the attractiveness/unattractiveness of our attire has ANYTHING to do with them.
4) Even if attractiveness attire sparks a response from a stranger:
a) Comments that are non-sexual, do not involve profanity, do not involve commenting on body parts, do not involve commenting on certain garments as a proxy for commenting on body parts, do not involve threats or unconsented to touching and which are delievered in passing without any suggestion that the compliment giver is going to stick around are all okay.
b) Comments that involve sexual overtures, profanity, commenting on body parts, commenting on items of clothing as a proxy for commenting on body parts, involve threats, unconsented to touching, leering, and/or are used as openers on public transpo. Not okay.

But what about guys who just want to meet women in public! First, wah, what about women who want to be left alone in public. Second, it is called a conversation. And walking away if the other person doesn't want to have one.

I speak here from a position of experience. Some times, I used to chat up the cute guy in the coffee line when I was single. But if all I got was an uh huh, whether my interest was romantic or just friendly, I would think, gee, I guess that person doesn't feel like talking to me.

(And then I would of course scream profanities, call them stuck up, and grope their biceps. J/K. But do you see the difference here? This behavior isn't on the line. This street harassment behavior deliberately crosses the line.)

SarahMC:

You're exactly right, you know it when you see it. Much of the verbiage that has been flung out here precludes the use of individual intellect to detect the very nuance that one would use to find sarcasm, or to tell when someone is laughing with us or at us.

My point with your foot/shoe compliment was compound but boils down to two main issues.

1) Some men have a desire to compliment your appearance, but know that saying "nice skirt" will be too easily associated with "nice buns". Nevertheless they wish to tell you they are looking at you, that they see you as a physical being, a sexually attractive being. Therefore complimenting your footwear is not always as simple as it seems.

2) While the example of a foot fetish is certainly in the minority, he is still talking to you about your body. You seem to indicate that the comment was less potentially menacing to you because it was about an article of clothing associated with your foot, but what I am saying is that you're making that distinction based on your own perceptions and beliefs w/o any verifiable insight into the basis he had for making this comment. Being aware of this should allow for the possibility that a comment about an article of clothing which you associate with your busom should be evaluated on a criteria other than what body part it is next to.

This leads you back to making a case by case assessment; which I feel you are certainly qualified to do. If we accept the individual's ability to do just that then we do not need to talk in generalities, which I am most vehemently against as I feel it disregards intellect and choice.

As to the homosexual/heterosexual question: Just because a homosexual could presumably have less incentive to objectify you (which I could debate strenuously, as I know many more overtly misogynist gay men than heterosexual misogynists who are open about it and objectification is certainly not just about sex but putting you in "your place") does not mean his commenting on your appearance is any more appropriate than a heterosexual male doing the same thing. Again I trust your ability to decide based on the incident and not some predetermined set of rules. If I were to know you, for example, and tell you that I admired the way you selected your ensemble I am certain you would know for yourself that I was actually complimenting your attire and sense taste and to be able to tell I was not being flirtatious, for the same reasons I trust you to spot with very reliable accuracy when someone is using similar words to sexualize you.

None of this is an argument for or an endorsement of catcalls, oggling (I don't know how to spell that), or walking up to strangers and talking about their boobs or weiners or whatever. What this is, is an expression of my own desire to find a reasonable and rational approach for evaluating the nature and merits of communication that allow for the diversity of human experience that does not create more taboos or walls.

We should not only be looking at ways to make certain conducts cease, but we should also be looking at ways to facilitate and encourage natural human expression in a benign and pleasant manner. Men and women (not to hetero normalize here, but it's kind of the topic at hand) will continue to want to meet, get to know each other, have sex, etc. Finding ways to allow the communication of these desires, from all interested parties, in ways which are not hurtful or insulting should be a consideration. We should allow room for a way in which a person can approach another person and express a specific interest without first knowing if that interest is reciprocated. I'm not saying I have that method nailed down, but it seems obvious that there is a need, and that social censure in absolute terms won't get us any closer to finding it.

But Logrus, the rules are already out there.

All anyone has to do is pick up a manners book, and although some of the specifics may seem out of date, what is and is not an appropriate compliment is pretty clear.

This is about privilege, and people, usually men, thinking they are entitled to women's time, attention, and approval.

logrus, i think you're absolutely right.

the way i see it is as follows: there's nothing wrong with finding someone attractive. there's nothing wrong with telling them so. (though i've never personally been interested in someone who compliments my appearance before beginning a conversation/relationship, but i don't believe it's *offensive* if someone pays me a compliment. i just doubt the effectiveness.)

but there's everything wrong with expecting one's attention be returned, or making assumptions about someone's character based on their appearance, or instilling fear in someone. (of course, different people find different things threatening, so this is a potential minefield.)

"While the example of a foot fetish is certainly in the minority, he is still talking to you about your body."

Technically, he was talking about her choice in footwear. Which is why saying, "Nice shoes" is different than "nice feet"; one you have control over (SarahMC probably picked them out), whereas one is mostly random happenstance.

Same thing with the sweater. Sometimes, depending upon who it is and your relationship to the person, "nice sweater" really just does mean "nice sweater"; "nice skirt" can mean "nice skirt". The difference between saying "nice sweater" and "nice boobs" is that a complement (if it isn't a veiled boob or butt thing) directed at the item of clothing is showing an appreciation for the person's taste and not whatever physical traits they've been genetically blessed with. Therefore, when someone says, "nice shoes", I take it as more of a complement than when some guy once told me I had "cute feet". Because I had a hand in picking out the shoes and none whatsoever in picking out the feet.

Ismone:

Of course you're not wring but you're not right either. We have in this very forum people expressing a very wide rainbow of their own opinions on what these "rules" are, many of htem contradicting one another.

While a universal constant, one I've agreed with from the start though it has been implied otherwise, is that catcalls and other blatant behavior is just wrong and gross.

However past that you have some people who appreciate compliments from strangers, but only on shoes, or only if they are well put and about legs, or never ever ever!

Then you have some who must live in some world I'm unfamiliar with where it's never ok to date co-workers. Disregarding the matter of consent or personal choice.

So you see, these rules do not exist. Indeed they cannot exist when each individual is claiming they know that the rules they have are not only correct, but should apply to everyone else (of course nobody will agree to it when stated that way, but look back through the posts and see how many instances you have of someone saying something which completely contradicts someone else and stating is as though it were universal fact that "that is how it should be/is").

Meanwhile if we can't agree on these rules it's premature to state as-fact so many things to be "wrong", etc. Lets agree that some things, the overt and buffoonish stuff, the boss or professor abusing authority, etc is obviously wrong and then agree to try and be tolerant of the other stuff until we can come to a consensus.

"that social censure in absolute terms won't get us any closer to finding it."

Why not? Why should women, who are angry with good reason, be encouraged to tone down those angry reactions to create a teachable moment?

Is this how you respond to your own anger if someone really transgresses?

I mean, really?

Sorry, Logrus,

Setting boundaries means that when I think something is inappropriate, I react to it. Period. If you are giving advice to women, and what we want to reach is a place where men and women are equally comfortable/uncomfortable in social situations, since those situations are unequal right now and women are so discouraged from expressing social disapproval--I'm thinking we need to tip the balance in favor of more female assertiveness on the subject, not less.

There will always be grey areas based on individual opinions, but I won't let things that really offend me be greyed out. Other women don't get to vote for me. The tone I set in my interactions may be more or less socially formal than the tones that others set. But I get to choose that tone. And it isn't unfair, because I have to react and learn everyone else's tone as well.

Also, let's say we come up with various social rules, and I do not like them. Am I bound them to follow them? Can I not get offended if someone is following "the rules."

I'm thinking no.

Appropriateness is not rocket science.

Plus, although you've said my rules "don't exist" you haven't given an example of how something on my "forbiddent to strangers" list could ever actually be appropriate.

Puckalish,

The conversation went from a woman dressed in whatever she want on a public subway to being on a date with a woman? Yes, she is "obiously" dressed for the other guy. I agree with that.

-Ben

Ben, the first time I was cat-called was when I was wearing a GIGANTIC puffy parka, and I was 12 years old. Clearly unsexy (I was also a late bloomer, and had no chest to speak of--not that you could even see my chest through my huge winter coat). Frankly, cat-calling is less about "complimenting" someone's attractiveness and more about putting women in their place.

It doesn't matter how attractive you are. My guy friends have been cat-called when they had long hair, and the cat-caller only saw them from behind.

And to the idiot that wrote that email: I don't EVER comment on a hot guy's appearance (and I see a lot of hot guys, riding on the metro to work every morning). Why is it so hard to ask that guys keep it to themselves?

I skimmed through a lot of the comments, so I don’t know if it has already been mentioned, but this guy is most definitely a bored Internet troll. He is just trying to get people on the site upset for entertainment purposes. I think we all got that. So ignore the outlandish sexism and comments, and get back to talking about something and someone more important. We need to teach young people to respect each other, and stop fueling those like Chance Noble.

Again, what about those of us who want to be able to occupy public space without having our appearance or our bodies or our romantic status brought up?? Believe me, I do really like being found attractive under the appropriate circumstances, but I really do think we need to keep in mind that the issue is WAY more complicated than just building a list of okay/not okay things for strangers to say to women on the street. The very nature of the interaction seems flawed to begin with.

Petpluto,

So it's like a uniform that = belonging to a husband/boyfriend.

Ismone & Petpluto,

You both act as if NO WOMEN dress for the benefit of others other than themselves and their mates when we know that is not the case. Some single women dress to be seen by others and may actually derive a boost in self-esteem from it.

-Ben

Or in other words, WHY are we still talking about how women are dressed at all???

Ismone:

"Why not? Why should women, who are angry with good reason, be encouraged to tone down those angry reactions to create a teachable moment?"

I'm not saying it's your obligation; but your other option is to wait for someone else to do it for you or to wait for the offenders to die and hope they are not replaced by more of the same. Life is a series of teachable moments. When you are able to take advantage of them you have the chance to make change, to make progress.

"Is this how you respond to your own anger if someone really transgresses?"

It's how I try to respond, but I'm imperfect. I get pissed and react like any other human. But I'm not pissed right now and the more I focus my intellect towards controlling the urge to react in kind to those who I feel do me disservice the more control I have over those urges.

"Other women don't get to vote for me."

I have to assume this is meant to address my statements that within this forum there is no consensus on what these rules are, but in fact it fails to do this. Unless we take to wearing badges indicating our own individual comfort levels explicitly then we are left with two choices:

1) go with the most restrictive forms of communication or even absolute gender/sexuality based segregation.

or

2) risk offending those who are at the extreme of personal standards for communication.

Now you've stated "Appropriateness is not rocket science."; well then please explain it in terms that account for the different and contradictory standards of those people in this forum. Since it's so simple anyone can figure it out explaining it should be quite simple indeed, particularly when fewer than 50 peopel have spoken out about it here and there are only 3 billion or so women on the planet to reconcile this with.

Furthermore any codified set of rules does take choice away from other women unless you're at the least willing to allow for errors in first efforts to communicate between people.

Ismone: "Plus, although you've said my rules "don't exist" you haven't given an example of how something on my "forbiddent to strangers" list could ever actually be appropriate."

I'm saying no rules exist, at least not as general principles. I pointed out several instances where statements made by people in this forum contradict one another. If they are all true, then none of them are true. If A = T and B = T and T = A&B but B can never = A then there is a problem. The answer must be something other than A or B.

Now I'm not stating such rules exist (beyond where I did repeatedly state that such obvious things as hollering at strange women about their breasts was clearly out of line), you are. Please reconcile your vision of truth with those who contradicts you and each other. Are they wrong? Are you wrong? Are we equally wrong?

I've said it (in somewhat different words) elsewhere and I'll say it here -- the people who are trying to pin down this extremely precise definition of what is and is not acceptable, what harrassment, assault, and even rape precisely is -- their very attempt to do so is a red flag, because anyone interested in a mutually beneficial and satisfying interaction with a woman wouldn't be asking essentially "So, how much can I get away with?"

If you treat a woman you're interested in the way you treat real human beings you actually like, you'll be fine. If you treat a woman you're interested in as a labyrinthine set of rules to navigate and eventually overcome in order to reach a goal, it's because you're not really interested in the woman but rather your own pleasure or gain.

I'm not blaming the victim.
But my experience has been that I am not harassed as much when I dress unattractively.
It is always the man's fault when it comes to harassment or rape, which are all invasions of our personal space. Never the woman's. Please don't assume that I'm blaming the victim.
I should be able to walk down the street stark naked and not get a second look. But the reality is that I will be harassed. There are streets I could walk down wearing a duck suit or an evening dress and I'd get harassed for change. Should we be afraid? No. But imo, wearing overtly sexual clothing has the effect of turning you into a sex object in some peoples' minds.

So, until this great social change comes along when no one judges anyone else by their appearance, what do we do in the meantime? Systematically have a life-changing feminist conversation with every low-life that ogles you on public transport?

Dress attractively - I don't care.
Dress ridiculously - I also don't care.

idiolect: "The very nature of the interaction seems flawed to begin with."

THIS.

But it's also necessary; so what do we do? Eliminate, through education, what we can that is most undesirable and unnecessary and find ways to modify or render harmless that which is necessary but undesirable to many or some.

idiolect: "the people who are trying to pin down this extremely precise definition of what is and is not acceptable, what harrassment, assault, and even rape precisely is"

Who is doing that?

Logrus,

First, here is the overall problem with your argument. You initially say, we have no rules, we need them. Then I list them. Then you say that those rules aren't real (without providing any exceptions). I point that out. Then you say those rules don't go far enough to get rid of all social discomfort. Then you make individualist arguments.

You have got to be consistent. Either rules can govern our every interaction if I just engage in those teachable moments, and we all give eachother the benefit of the doubt, blah, blah, these rules will emerge; or rules will always fail because people are different. (What I happen to believe is that the rules exist, they only get you so far, and power dynamics dictate who is following the rules, and at whose expense they are being broken>)

Make your choice. Or come up with another framework.

I really don't see why you feel the need to tell me what my options are. Being an adult, I have figured them out pretty well. You're being a little patronizing.

When women are (finally!) opening up about the ways that we are harassed, and you come in and say, ahhh but if you finesse your response to these milder harassers, they might learn--I'm sorry, you just do not know what you are talking about. My mom's generation tried gentle social redirection. It did not work. I do not need your advice on social interactions. Really. I have managed to come up with ways to respond to inappropriate behavior by trial and error and discussing it with other people who have been faced with the same issues.

BTW, I have learned the hard way that "trying to be nice" and create a teachable moment rarely works when dealing with looks-based harassment. About half the time I do it, the person escalates their behavior, and ends up doing something further over the line, until they get the harsh reaction. And friends, if I misread their intentions and consider a comment to be sexual when it wasn't---they get over it. Or they bring it up and we work it out, with apologies on one or both sides.

Okay, nice to know you're not pissed right now, but you are telling women how you think they should react in the heat of the moment.

Interesting that you don't address my point that this in a social context where women are encouraged to make everyone else (esp. men) all comfy and to violently suppress any other reactions. Why are you not addressing the underlying inequality?

No, "other women don't get to vote for me" is my response to your idea that we should some how codify something stricter and more definite than the well-known rules on social interaction I mentioend. Which you still haven't contradicted.

Instead, again, of addressing my arguments, you take this to the territory you'd rather fight on, and set up a false dichotomy.

Appropriateness is a threshhold. That's why it isn't rocket science. I am saying, if you don't do these things, THE RULE is that your behavior will be considered appropriate. (Can you find exceptions? yes. But if you think that really matters, then give me a rule with no exceptions.) This threshhold is not being met, in many situations by MEN in their interactions with WOMEN because of privilege.

It is simple. Read Emily Post, or Miss Manners, or just about any handbook on polite behavior. There are lists of "this you shall not say" and if you compare them, they are remarkably similar.

Logrus, in response to your last comment, you're advocating new rules.

My view of rules is that there are generally accepted rules, which almost everyone agree to on the threshhold (the ones I stated).

The other smoke you're throwing up is true of all social interaction, not just interaction regarding looks/attraction. Yeah, social interaction is hard. Let's not blame it on the people being objectified, 'kay? Just as I don't exist to get them off, I also don't exist to explain to them why I'm not there to get them off.

But imo, wearing overtly sexual clothing has the effect of turning you into a sex object in some peoples' minds

I'm sorry, but bullshit.

Or, rather, not bullshit, but poorly phrased to a ridiculous extent.

Try this way: Some people will turn you into a sex object if you wear revealing clothes.

Because what is "overtly sexual" anyway? If I show cleavage? Because my breasts look a lot bigger in a crewneck top than they do in a v-neck. If I wear a short skirt? Because it's 95 degrees out on an average summer day, and I'm sure as hell not draping myself in ankle-length fabric. If I wear a fitted blouse? Because my job requires business-appropriate clothing, and my boyfriend's gigantic t-shirt doesn't cut it.

"Overtly sexual" is all about intent. If I don't dress with the intent of being ogled, no one has any right to assume that I did. And if they turn me into a sex object, it's not because of anything I did, it's because of their own issues.

Don't frame this as something that my fashion choices have caused - frame it, correctly, as something that other people do whether I want it or not.

I was just thinking about the subject of street harassment today due to a personal incident. I work as a nanny during the summer. Today I was walking with the two children ages 5 and 8 to the park when some idiot yelled out obscene comments to me. Mind you I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. I don’t dress up to babysit. Sadly, I had to explain to the 8-year-old girl that there are bad men in the world that lack respect.

"Just as I don't exist to get them off, I also don't exist to explain to them why I'm not there to get them off."

That.

Ismone: No, I wasn't. I was pointing out the fallacy of trying to define rules when nobody can agree to what is appropriate or inappropriate.

I was responding to a poster (come on, you must have read this) who was insisting that the rules were obvious.

The only "rules" I've agreed to is the the running up on strangers talking about boobs and other obviously crappy behavior. Otherwise if you actually read what I've said I've advocated individual freedom to define and interpret each encounter for what it is while also advocating tolerance allowing room for the potential for benign misunderstanding.

You really should read what I've said in it's entirety. Particularly when I'm agreeing with you.

More rules is completely antithetical to my personal philosophy. Please actually read what I've posted if you're going to direct comments toward me.

"So it's like a uniform that = belonging to a husband/boyfriend"

No, dipshit, not any moreso than said husband/boyfriend belongs to me. It's about wanting them to find me attractive, wanting their attention -but nothing at all about ownership.

"You both act as if NO WOMEN dress for the benefit of others other than themselves and their mates when we know that is not the case. Some single women dress to be seen by others and may actually derive a boost in self-esteem from it."

Sometimes I dress nicely thinking I might meet a cute stranger. In these cases, I don't mind some interest, politely expressed, from strange men who don't interest me. Polite interest could be things like: striking up a conversation to get to know something about me. Complimenting me in a non-overly sexual/non-overly assuming/non-threatening way (i.e. nice hair, nice dress, etc.). It most certainly /does not/ include leering, rude comments, insults, groping, or just generally assuming they have a right to my time/attention (i.e. if I seem disinterested, give it up). And that, Ben, for anyone who has experienced these various behaviors, or is not a total fucking moron, is not a hard thing to distinguish.

Therefore, I must assume you're just a total fucking moron. Sorry.

a.k.a. Ninapendamaishi: "Sometimes I dress nicely thinking I might meet a cute stranger. In these cases, I don't mind some interest, politely expressed, from strange men who don't interest me."

I assume you meant to say that you never mind politely expressed attention from men who don't interest you, as strange men would normally have no way of knowing the difference between those days you were cool with it and those days you were not (barring walking down the street with a running chainsaw).

"I assume you meant to say that you never mind politely expressed attention from men who don't interest you, as strange men would normally have no way of knowing the difference between those days you were cool with it and those days you were not (barring walking down the street with a running chainsaw)."

Well, were I an infallible human being, that might be the case. I have days, like anyone else, when I'm tired, in a bad mood, etc., when I don't want to be bothered by /any/ strangers.

The problem situations in my mind can usually be categorized into A) impolite attention AND/OR B) some attitude like I owe them my time/attention -like when they don't leave me alone as soon as they get a vibe I'm not interested in engaging in any way

awesome job here of laying it all out.

but i really am honestly baffled at the need to nitpick every possible social situation here when that's not what the topic at hand is at all. i really can't buy that otherwise functionally intelligent, socialized human men are unable to distinguish behaviors that are generally considered (if not by EVERY SINGLE WOMAN EVER) to be inappropriate from appropriate ones. of course there are individuals! of course there are exceptions! but the fact that some dudes might like it more if i greeted them by spitting in their faces than by smiling and saying "hello" doesn't mean i should go around expectorating, does it? i mean let's get real. it's not anything approaching first grade science, much less quantum physics to know how to behave in public places.

libertyburning:

What Ninapendamaishi said.

I belong to no man. No man belongs to me. If I'm dressing nicely for my boyfriend or date, that doesn't indicate that I belong to him. It indicates that I like him and want to get a little spiffed up. Hopefully, he will have put in equal effort to look good as well.

"You both act as if NO WOMEN dress for the benefit of others other than themselves and their mates when we know that is not the case. Some single women dress to be seen by others and may actually derive a boost in self-esteem from it."

Your problem is that you're equating street harassment with complements. I've been complemented by strangers; I get "I love your hair" a lot because I've got long red hair. I've been harassed by strangers; "why don't you ride my cock, baby?" being among the most memorable (and the least scary, actually). The first is appreciated. The second? Never will be. Ever. That isn't a self-esteem booster for me. It is a power play by the guy making the comment. And I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that other than this : Street Harassment ? A Complement.

Again, if you're having trouble discerning what makes one street harassment and one a complement, for the sake of everyone involved just don't say anything. Because street harassment is about taking power away from women, about taking the right for a woman to walk down the street as she chooses to away from her. Complements? Aren't.

I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period.

YES! Thank you. Exactly that.

Logrus,

This is what I took as you endorsing rules. Perhaps I misread.

"What this is, is an expression of my own desire to find a reasonable and rational approach for evaluating the nature and merits of communication that allow for the diversity of human experience that does not create more taboos or walls.

We should not only be looking at ways to make certain conducts cease, but we should also be looking at ways to facilitate and encourage natural human expression in a benign and pleasant manner. Men and women (not to hetero normalize here, but it's kind of the topic at hand) will continue to want to meet, get to know each other, have sex, etc. Finding ways to allow the communication of these desires, from all interested parties, in ways which are not hurtful or insulting should be a consideration. We should allow room for a way in which a person can approach another person and express a specific interest without first knowing if that interest is reciprocated. I'm not saying I have that method nailed down, but it seems obvious that there is a need, and that social censure in absolute terms won't get us any closer to finding it."

In any event, I still think you're failing to take women's lived experiences and current social dynamics into account, and instead are encouraging us to be nice. Although that wouldn't generally be a loaded thing to say, here, it is really loaded, for the reasons I've said, which you haven't responded to.

BTW, I have read everything you and everyone else has posted on the thread. If I misunderstood some point, it was honest.

i heartily second ann's comment and also this one by idiolect:

"I've said it (in somewhat different words) elsewhere and I'll say it here -- the people who are trying to pin down this extremely precise definition of what is and is not acceptable, what harrassment, assault, and even rape precisely is -- their very attempt to do so is a red flag, because anyone interested in a mutually beneficial and satisfying interaction with a woman wouldn't be asking essentially "So, how much can I get away with?"

If you treat a woman you're interested in the way you treat real human beings you actually like, you'll be fine. If you treat a woman you're interested in as a labyrinthine set of rules to navigate and eventually overcome in order to reach a goal, it's because you're not really interested in the woman but rather your own pleasure or gain."

you asked who that was directed to, logrus. um, you.

i guess i just think that anyone spending so much time asking for clarification here should really think about why he's so concerned that there is some woman out there who at some specific time may appreciate a stare or a honk or an exclamation when all these women on this thread alone are saying in no uncertain terms "we do not want to be told we have nice tits!" there ARE some very basic rules being set out here that would match up with what most women on the street, if asked, would endorse.

i won't even get into the fact that if a women IS expressly looking for validation of her appearance by strange males on the subway, that the reason for that is most likely that she's grown up in a society that tells women they are nothing without male approval.

Ninapendamaishi,

What's with the dipshit, moron and fucking moron? I promise not to use such language towards you though. I happen to have a different opinion, that's all. Here's my argument simply put,

Some men enjoy looking at attractive women.
Some women enjoy looking attractive.
Some attractive women dress very well.
Therefore, some men will enjoy looking at women that are dressed very well because they are attractive.

How's that logic for a moron such as myself?

-Ben

Ann:

"Instead, I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period."

Was it your intent to imply that I've made any statement indicating an agreement with some principle where a man should have a right to do this?

Can you quote the text that gave you the impression I believed this to be true?

Well Ben, perhaps you meant to comment on another thread, and did so on this one by accident?

Because the topic at hand here is not really "looking" per se...

oi. this is part of why many women want a big flashy engagement ring. it's a sparkly, glittery sign that can say DON'T BOTHER. it's sad that some men will only treat a woman like a person if they think she's "owned" by someone else. ***blech*** guys like chance make me want to go buy some sparkly designer-impostor-fake diamond crap and wear it every time i leave the damn house. it won't stop everyone, of course, but hey, if it can cut down on the harassing tools, i just might try it.

not too comfortable with the whole "well, single women dress nicely to be seen by others!" line of discussion. um, hello. everyone dresses to be seen by others, that's not as issue of someone's marital status. that's why i wash and iron my clothes and don't leave the house in my PJs. and, you know, god forbid a married woman wants to be found attractive or sexually alluring. (and if a pregnant woman does? HOLY CRAP! armageddon has arrived!)

ninapendamaishi and petpluto beautifully summed it up for me—thanks, ladies.

Ismone: "In any event, I still think you're failing to take women's lived experiences and current social dynamics into account, and instead are encouraging us to be nice. Although that wouldn't generally be a loaded thing to say, here, it is really loaded, for the reasons I've said, which you haven't responded to."

But I did. I responded by restating my belief that it should be up to the individual to determine and that the assertions up-thread which I was responding to which were contradictory (again: Some people are cool with strangers complimenting them, some were only cool with it if it was about really innocuous things, and some folks feel that there is never an excuse to flirt with a stranger, some feel that it's never good to ask a co-worker out) was precisely why pointing me to Ms. Manners and asserting that it was "not rocket science" (ergo: simple) was fallacy.

"BTW, I have read everything you and everyone else has posted on the thread. If I misunderstood some point, it was honest."

Perhaps my agreeing that certain kinds of conduct are clearly inappropriate while maintaining that others are more ambiguous (an assertion supported throughout this thread by other posters) could be construed as conflicted. So fair enough, if that was the cause of the confusion.

Ben -- pretty terrible "logic" actually. First of all, it's not an accurate representation of the things you've been saying. Absolutely no one here has been arguing for or against whether or not men like looking at attractive women, put as simply as that. Also, your second premise has nothing to do with the conclusion. Your third premise does absolutely nothing except establish the existential status of attractive women who dress well. Plus, there is absolutely nothing in your premises about women dressing well because they are attractive, nor is there anything about men paying especial attention to how women are dressed (which I assume is what you're going for). So basically what you're saying is "Some men like to look at attractive women; some of these attractive women dress well; therefore some men like to look at well-dressed attractive women." Whoop de do.

(Sorry guys, I just flinch whenever anyone implies that they have some kind of authority in an argument because OMG LOGIC. I mean, if you're going to be a jerk and do that, you ought to at least be, you know, familiar with actual logic. Sigh).

(P.S. On a related note -- what's with the handful of people who are suddenly talking like That One Smug Jerk From Phil101?)

katie80andstuff: And I suspected it was, not because I've once tried to narrow down anything. Which if you had really read my posts you would know, but because I've had a string of people responding to my who clearly didn't read my posts. They only saw the last person who responded to me, and figured they would climb aboard.

I've stated the exact opposite sentiment to the notion of trying to define these guidelines. I've continuously pointed out how ambiguous they are, how completely personal each perspective on interaction is.

To imply that a person says something which they are clearly not saying is the tactic of the intellectually challenged. It's what Sean Hannity did to Sen. Obama when he claimed the Senator was for killing birthed infants.

"you asked who that was directed to, logrus. um, you."

You should save the snark for when you're right.

"If I could snap my fingers and create my feminist ideal, I would not ensure men knew the "rules" for hitting on women in public. Instead, I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period."

seriously.

"Instead, I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period."

Was it your intent to imply that I've made any statement indicating an agreement with some principle where a man should have a right to do this?

Can you quote the text that gave you the impression I believed this to be true?

Logrus, you reacted to a conversation regarding men approaching women in public spaces by emphasizing that "we should allow room for a way in which a person can approach another person and express a specific interest without first knowing if that interest is reciprocated." I don't disagree with the superficial meaning of your statement here in a general and isolated sense -- apart from all context, I generally think it is a good thing if people can get to know one another. However, the context of what was going on in the discussion at the time strongly implies that you made the statement specifically as a warning against condemning strangers from approaching women on the street. This, in turn, comes across as you saying "Without giving men the right to approach women on the street and bring attention to their appearance and availability, our ability to begin relationships will be severely limited." It's not a short jump from here to the assumption that men have exactly the "rights" Ann is referring to (for the good of society, you know).

Sorry, the italics was supposed to end after "...believed this to be true?"

logrus,

ann was responding to the comment you made about wanting a way to "show interest" in a woman without knowing if that interest is reciprocated. she stated pretty clearly that a man shouldn't have any right to make comments to a strange woman. i couldn't agree more.

you keep pressing the issue like you're worried somewhere, sometime, some dude might miss out on something because he was too respectful to proposition someone. guess what? women aren't here for your sexual titillation. women aren't pieces of public property, even if they're ON public property. if you meet a woman you're attracted to, it is not that difficult to signal attraction without being a pervert. figure it out.

"you asked who that was directed to, logrus. um, you."

You should save the snark for when you're right.

Uh, wow. Well I guess you should too, because I wrote that post, and it definitely was directed to you.

In all seriousness, I honestly can't see how you wouldn't have picked up on that either -- the comment was specifically about/directed to those who expend lots of energy looking for precision in a definition of harassment, which you have been the shining example of in this thread?

(D'oh, messed up the italics again, I hope it's clear to people what I meant there, sorry guys. It's been a long past couple of days).

Ben, the topic at hand is sexual harassment, lewd comments, uninvited sexual touching, etc. Neither the writer of this post nor any of the commenters has suggested or insisted that men should not find certain women attractive. Please stop pretending that's the point of this thread. You are arguing against sentiments that have not even been expressed.

I truly do appreciate the sense of duty you seem to have re: fulfilling random women's desires to look attractive. It's almost like you think you owe women the pleasure of unsolicited comments on their looks, and we meany feminists are trying to stop you in your chivilrous quest. You fancy yourself some sort of public servant, huh?

Also, (some) guys, stop conflating drive-by (or walk-by) comments about T&A with earnest attempts to get to know a woman. Guys shouting at twelve year olds from their cars are not trying to be friendly and social. Guys who grab women's breasts at the club aren't just *bad* at asking women out. Come on.

@ SarahMC"Also, (some) guys, stop conflating drive-by (or walk-by) comments about T&A with earnest attempts to get to know a woman."

You said it. It's like some guys come on here talking like they think that they aren't going to be able to get laid if we live in a world where harassment is unexceptable (borrowing the sentiments of a Russian judge).

Frankly, the only other times I've witnessed conversations get this off track are when we are talking about date rape and legalizing prostitution. Makes me wonder.

Ahem. New name again, sorry, lost all my passwords.

I am a short, dumpy woman with very large and noticeable breasts. I am not particularly pretty, although I'm not unpleasant to look at, as far as I can tell. Whilst fat, I do have a mostly hourglassy figure. I am also very, very pale.

This means that I look drastically different depending on the cut of my clothes, the shape of my clothes, the colour of my clothes, whether my hair is up or down, if I am wearing make-up and what sort of bra I am wearing.

If I am wearing a strappy top, a sun dress, or anything that doesn't actively hide my breasts, I am hollered at. "Look at the size of those TITTIES!" "Lookit THAT!" "Are those real, luv?!" "Phwoaaaar!"

If I am wearing an old bra that fits poorly, has lest elasticity, and a top that covers my chest, I am hollered at. "Fat bitch!" "What the FUCK is that?!" "Go on a diet, piggy!"

If I am dressed up to the nines, looking smart or attractive, with my hair down and styled and make-up on, I get hollered at. "Slut!" "Come over here, then, I'll give you one!" "Give me a taste!"

If I am having a lazy day, just popped out to get the paper in my raggy gardening jeans, baggy t-shirt belonging to my OH, hair pulled back scraggily and old sneaker on, I get hollered at.

If I am walking along, smiling and happy, aggressive men ask me "what the fuck are YOU smiling at, bitch?". If I am having a bad day, and walking along frowning, or just not smiling, I am told to "smile" by complete strangers.

I have been out with friends, dressed "modestly" (whatever THAT means on any given day of the week) and have ended up asking if we can leave the pub because some idiot started harassing me at the bar while I was getting a drink, and stuffed his hand down my top when I tried to reach over the bar to get my change. I have have had weirdos sitting near me on a near-empty train or bus, pressing their leg up against me and touching themselves. I have been propositioned in the street, assaulted in the street, assaulted in my home, attacked by a bunch of drunk arseholes on my way to/from work, and I get some sort of unwelcome, shitty comment pretty much once a week. I also get guys thinking they are entitled to grab me, without warning, because somehow having big tits is something I have done on purpose.

You know what? (to the emailer and people posting in the comments)

I think it would be kinda nice if I could spend, say, maybe a week of my life being able to go outside and NOT worry about how my appearance is going to cause a reaction. Or, perhaps someone could let me know WHAT I am allowed to wear that says "please leave me alone"?

idiolect: You can choose to dissect from context any statement, but one of the reasons I try to use either directed quotes or specific usernames is just in case some part of what I'm saying addresses a specific point instead of the general topic.

Point of fact my first comment, and I think each subsequent comment was in response to a user. Either an attempt to clarify, or to address something that I observed to be inconsistent with the overall logic of what was being put forth.

The specific comment you are referring to has nothing to do with men just walking up and forcing themselves verbally on someone but was addressing comments that have been made which allow no communication between strangers. This stance struck me as insanely extremist, but instead of calling someone a nutter I was trying to be as clear as possible.

If you have read this thread from start to present then you will know there are multiple points being discussed, and I think everyone has agreed on some basic standard of what is inappropriate while some brought up more ambiguous encounters. It was actually not me who even brought it up, I was commenting initially on something someone else said about an encounter which was not really related to the Subway creepy stuff.

katie80andstuff:

I think any adult can tell the difference between having a desire to find a way for people to communicate interest in strangers without offending them and someone expecting the right to force themselves on others in unpleasant ways.

What you, and if you're stating her point correctly, is looking for some kind of verbiage indicating a desire on my part to enable oppression. Which is pretty silly, since that's not who I am or what I'm about.

And unless you're into "keeping it in the family" then my stated desire to find/work toward some way to improve communication among strangers should be read as a positive by any rational person.

idiolect:

Not right about who you were talking about, right about her assessment of my motives or what I was saying. Because she was telling me that I'm pushing for some narrowing of a definition, etc.

Which I've clearly stated and re-stated I'm not. I've pointed out repeatedly that communication is too complex and subjective to try and apply universal rules (at least not specific ones past "don't go up to someone ant talk about their genitals"). Yet it keeps getting repeated that I've somehow indicated this when it's just the opposite.

That's what she was wrong about. If course if you'd have read the very first sentence of my reply you would have gotten that.

I guess my posts are conducive to skimming rather than reading.

"And unless you're into "keeping it in the family" then my stated desire to find/work toward some way to improve communication among strangers should be read as a positive by any rational person."

I think you're off topic for this thread, Logrus. You should work on that.

Not to mention, strangers aren't the only ones not-related to you. There are friends, friends of friends, acquaintances, and so on...

I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period.

This ideal would seem to implicitly reject egalitarianism, placing heterosexual men in a subordinate role of having to beg for the privilege of female attention and time, forcing them to bargain on terms expressly weighted toward women. Or, if it does not reject equal dignity, concern, and respect, then it leaves us all in a world in which asking for directions or the time is a crime and expecting parents not to neglect their children is unreasonable. It is also remarkably blind to the real psychological impact it would have. A man who literally believes that "I do not deserve to express my attraction to women" and "I do not deserve the time or attention of women" is a man with very low self-esteem. Indeed, that is the kind of man who might be prone to hate women, view violent porn, and "strike back" at women in the form of sex crimes and violence. I realize that it is fashionable to attack the male ego, but everyone has an ego for a reason.

This guy got what he wanted in being the subject of an individual posting, and then an extraordinary number of comments because he hit all the trigger buttons. Everything he says is so old and predicatable and we've heard it so many times before. He even uses the tired (yawn) tactic of attacking Courtney's sexuality and attractiveness asserting that only a jealous, ugly woman would take her view because she can't get the looks of admiration all us women are supposedly clamouring for everytime we step out in public. Is it really worth feeding this guy's ego, because what he wants is a reaction, and nothing is going to change his views. He aims to be offensive and upset, and on that score, he has succeeded. I agree with a blogger above who suggested the delete button is the best course of action. Why spend time and energy debating the words of someone whose whole aim is to create a reaction FOR HIMSELF. Surely it's better to concentrate on the issues Feministing is so good at bringing to our attention, than the misogynist fantasies of one individual?

This guy got what he wanted in being the subject of an individual posting, and then an extraordinary number of comments because he hit all the trigger buttons.

I agree with this assessment. Indeed, I find quite amusing that dozens of clearly intelligent, perceptive feminists were unable to recognize a guy who wanted to trigger their angry denunciations because HE LIKES WOMEN WHO ANGRILY DENOUNCE HIM. The notion that feminists are angry, crazed, male-bashers isn't just a misperception; for many men it is a fantasy. For some men, feminist rhetoric is pornographic. Strange, but true.

A Guy - Men don't have to "beg" for women's attention and nobody here is discussing such a thing; indeed, most men and most women (outside of narrowly defined Dom-Sub subcultures) would find that nauseating. Mature women who like men seem to appreciate common sense and full respect, as if they were in fact full members of the human race. That's the only thing I see being requested here, and "begging" defies self-respect and common sense. But if a woman wants nothing to do with a man or all men, that right is absolute, not dependent on whether Chance wants to "hit that thang."

Here's the acid test. Imagine a 55 year-old male factory worker sitting on a subway car, reading a newspaper. Do you have the right to bother him? No? You don't think so? Then you don't have the right to bother his 27 year-old niece either, even if your eye draws to her decolletage. I say "you" in the generic, since you are obviously not the problem.

"begging" defies self-respect and common sense.

Agreed.

Men don't have to "beg" for women's attention and nobody here is discussing such a thing

Actually, Ann proposed an ideal world that would seem to establish precisely that power dynamic. That is why I criticized her utopia.

indeed, most men and most women (outside of narrowly defined Dom-Sub subcultures) would find that nauseating.

But I was not discussing reality. I was responding to Ann's (fictional) perfect world, posited in alignment with her utopian ideals.

Imagine a 55 year-old male factory worker sitting on a subway car, reading a newspaper. Do you have the right to bother him?

Is asking him for the time or for directions a crime? Is it wrong to expect that he take care of his kids? Or respect basic human obligation? No.

"This guy got what he wanted in being the subject of an individual posting,"

I don't know -do you think he really anticipated his full name and work info being posted? I think sometimes addressing people can be affective...

"Men don't have to "beg" for women's attention and nobody here is discussing such a thing

Actually, Ann proposed an ideal world that would seem to establish precisely that power dynamic. That is why I criticized her utopia."

Nonesense. You seem to be implying a belief that men /need/ the attention of strange women. I think most women, as-is, do not feel they have the "right" to the time and attention of strange men. So what Ann is actually proposing here is an egalitarian situation.

You seem to be implying a belief that men /need/ the attention of strange women.

No. I am accepting that heterosexual men approach women in public and that they will continue to do so in any realistically possible foreseable future.

I think most women, as-is, do not feel they have the "right" to the time and attention of strange men. So what Ann is actually proposing here is an egalitarian situation.

Equal respect does not set women as the norm. It respects men and women equally.

I don't know -do you think he really anticipated his full name and work info being posted?

He probably used a fake name and e-mail address to avoid detection. Chance Noble? Please.

"No. I am accepting that heterosexual men approach women in public and that they will continue to do so in any realistically possible foreseable future."

I believe that's why Ann used the term "ideal".

"Equal respect does not set women as the norm. It respects men and women equally."

Which is what Ann's standard was doing. Since normally, women do not feel they have the right to the time and attention of strange men, Ann wants the reverse to be true as well, that men do not feel they have the right to the time and attention of strange women. That is an equal situation, that respects both genders. I really do not think that's difficult to understand.

a guy, no one is saying anything about forbidding all social interaction, for crying out loud. i thought it was implicit that the topic here was guys who think they have the right to a woman's time, attention, reciprocation for purely sexual or social interactions. no one here has made any sort of suggestion that a man politely approaching them to ask which way main street is from here without any other behavior is verboten.

it's getting really tiring to watch dudes here bend over backwards to put words in our mouths.

also, yeah, we get that chance was deliberately offensive. this is the internet. thank you oh-so-wise penis bearer for educating us silly feminists of the ways of trollery, a concept heretofore unknown to us.

a guy, no one is saying anything about forbidding all social interaction, for crying out loud. i thought it was implicit that the topic here was guys who think they have the right to a woman's time, attention, reciprocation for purely sexual or social interactions. no one here has made any sort of suggestion that a man politely approaching them to ask which way main street is from here without any other behavior is verboten.

it's getting really tiring to watch dudes here bend over backwards to put words in our mouths.

also, yeah, we get that chance was deliberately offensive. this is the internet. thank you oh-so-wise penis bearer for educating us silly feminists of the ways of trollery, a concept heretofore unknown to us.

Since normally, women do not feel they have the right to the time and attention of strange men, Ann wants the reverse to be true as well, that men do not feel they have the right to the time and attention of strange women.

That would be setting women as the norm, not respecting men and women equally (and would have negative consequences, as I noted in my response to Ann's actual post, rather than your reconstruction of it).

In any event, I will add that I don't think many feminists would agree with you that an ideal world is one in which we regulate the feelings people have. I cannot imagine any such world that did not involve totalitarianism. Nor do I imagine that it is ideal to compel men to think what women want them to. Egalitarianism does not entail thought control.

a guy, no one is saying anything about forbidding all social interaction, for crying out loud.

I never asserted that Ann wanted to forbid all social interaction in her ideal world. You might try responding to my actual comments before calling me a troll.

a guy, no one is saying anything about forbidding all social interaction, for crying out loud. i thought it was implicit that the topic here was guys who think they have the right to a woman's time, attention, reciprocation for purely sexual or social interactions. no one here has made any sort of suggestion that a man politely approaching them to ask which way main street is from here without any other behavior is verboten.

it's getting really tiring to watch dudes here bend over backwards to put words in our mouths.

also, yeah, we get that chance was deliberately offensive. this is the internet. thank you oh-so-wise penis bearer for educating us silly feminists of the ways of trollery, a concept heretofore unknown to us.

What Ann said: [Instead, I'd make it so every man started from the premise that he does not have a right to walk up to a woman he does not know and express his feelings about her body, or demand any sort of response when he speaks to her. No right to her time. No right her her attention. Period.]

A guy says: [This ideal would seem to implicitly reject egalitarianism, placing heterosexual men in a subordinate role of having to beg for the privilege of female attention and time, forcing them to bargain on terms expressly weighted toward women.]

First off let's define the word "right": A right refers to a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. Rights often refer to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim. Other well-known examples are the right to vote and the right to bear arms.

Now, go back and read what Ann wrote and forget about female "attention". By what logic are you going by to support that ANY ADULT person has a a CLAIM over any other adult person even if we are just taking about time and attention?

I think we all agree that common courtesy is preferable, but it is not a right that people can stake a claim to. I repeat. No adult has the claim (or right) to attention and time from a stranger.

thank you oh-so-wise penis bearer for educating us silly feminists of the ways of trollery, a concept heretofore unknown to us.

Would it be appropriate for me to insult you by referring to your genitals? You quite obviously are not an egalitarian.

um, you implied that ann was somehow suggesting that parents interacting with their children or people asking each other for directions was bad so yeah, i'd say you were referring to most normal social interaction.

also, maybe you should read what's posted--i never called you a troll. i was referring to your pointless, condescending remarks here telling us that "chance noble" was trolling, like we somehow didn't catch that.

as for regulating feelings, i can't seem to grasp how you can miss the point by this wide a margin. where did anyone ever even mention that? no one is suggesting that heterosexual men don't have the right to FEEL attraction. what they don't have the right to do is act on it by harassing women. it's a pretty basic principle that applies to everyone, regardless of gender.

"That would be setting women as the norm, not respecting men and women equally (and would have negative consequences, as I noted in my response to Ann's actual post, rather than your reconstruction of it)."

No it wouldn't. Not feeling a right to a strange man's time and attention is not an "inherent" female characteristic. It is rather a result of the position of women in our society, as women are taught to respect men. Feeling a right to a person's time and attention is not being respectful of that person, it is, as other's have pointed out, a sort of feeling of ownership over that person. /Not/ feeling a right to a strange person's time and attention is simply being respectful.

By what logic are you going by to support that ANY ADULT person has a a CLAIM over any other adult person even if we are just taking about time and attention?

I took Ann to be speaking in ordinary language, not in legalistic language, because no one asserted, for example, that the Constitution states, "All men shall have the right to time and attention from women in public spaces." That would be ludicrous and absurd and no man in the United States of America believes that or would posit that, so I took Ann not to be responding to such an argument. People often use the term right in ordinary language when they really mean "social obligation," in terms of setting bounds for civility. As you'll note, I changed the term "right" into "I do not deserve..." in critiquing Ann's post to accomodate what she reasonably meant ("social obligation"). So your commentary about legal claims is really irrelevant to my criticism of Ann's ideal social arrangement, which I summed up in responding to Bruce: "Is asking him for the time or for directions a crime? Is it wrong to expect that he take care of his kids? Or respect basic human obligation? No." If by saying "no one has the right" you mean that "no one can go into court and assert the Constitution guarantees it, and win" then we do not disagree; if you mean "no woman should have a social obligation to treat men decently, such treatment is a privilege," then that is problematic, as I mentioned in my original response to Ann's post.

Not feeling a right to a strange man's time and attention is not an "inherent" female characteristic.

I made no essentialist claims. But I don't think either one of us knows whether this is a sex or a gender difference. If you have conclusive scientific proof, either way, I'd be happy to see it.

women are taught to respect men.

Women should be taught to respect men. Men should be taught to respect women. Everyone should be taught to respect everyone.

Feeling a right to a person's time and attention is not being respectful of that person, it is, as other's have pointed out, a sort of feeling of ownership over that person. /Not/ feeling a right to a strange person's time and attention is simply being respectful.

It depends if you are reading "right" as a legal claim asserted in court or as social obligation; in the latter case you are arguing that it is disrespectul to expect one to heed basic norms of decency.

"if you mean "no woman should have a social obligation to treat men decently, such treatment is a privilege," then that is problematic"

ah HA! i guess that would depend on what one's definition of "decent" treatment is. i don't think it's indecent to ignore someone who is trying to talk to me when i'm sitting on the subway reading a book or listening to headphones or just sitting there minding my own business, particularly when that person is hitting on me. apparently you disagree.

heeding basic norms of society isn't giving attention to COMPLETE AND TOTAL STRANGERS TRYING TO CHAT YOU UP. is that really something you think is so fundamental to all human interaction that the world is going to end if dudes stop trying to get in my pants in the checkout line or the subway or the park? honestly?

i don't think it's indecent to ignore someone who is trying to talk to me when i'm sitting on the subway reading a book or listening to headphones or just sitting there minding my own business, particularly when that person is hitting on me. apparently you disagree.

Actually, I took no position on your (just posited) scenario. I was critiquing Ann's ideal world for its far reaching implications. I don't think Ann's comment had anything to do with you sitting on the subway, unless you are a man entertaining thoughts she wants to regulate.

"Women should be taught to respect men. Men should be taught to respect women. Everyone should be taught to respect everyone."

As you can see from the OP and the numerous stories of women on this website, men are often not taught to respect women. That is what we're complaining about.

"It depends if you are reading "right" as a legal claim asserted in court or as social obligation; in the latter case you are arguing that it is disrespectul to expect one to heed basic norms of decency."

No it doesn't. Because if you are saying you believe someone has a "social obligation" to give you their time and attention, you are still demanding something from them. Hence "ownership" is a very relevant concept...

Who truly has a social obligation to you, would I say? Maybe like, your parents. Caretakers, in general. Many men /do/ expect every woman they interact with to mommy them and cater to their needs -that, I would say, is a big problem.

is that really something you think is so fundamental to all human interaction that the world is going to end if dudes stop trying to get in my pants in the checkout line or the subway or the park?

If I take your interpretation of a "right," you have no legal claim to squash free speech.

What would be your ideal scenario then, A guy?

That women in general would treat men in general the way men treat them?

That every time you walk down the street you get numerous catcalls, comments about your appearance, and insults?

That you occasionally get groped by strange women?

That all sorts of women who you do not feel a personal attraction for get visibly offended, and sometimes persist, when you do not respond positively to their advances?

Because if you are saying you believe someone has a "social obligation" to give you their time and attention, you are still demanding something from them. Hence "ownership" is a very relevant concept...

men are often not taught to respect women. That is what we're complaining about.

Your two above statements are contradictory. If you believe that men should be taught to respect women, then you are demanding that men be taught to respect women so that men actually respect women. That is claiming ownership of men. How can you complain that men feel that women are property if you feel that men are property?

Or, you could just abandon your ownership argument and simply concede that men and women have a social obligation to each other to treat each other with respect. That should not be a controversial claim.

That women in general would treat men in general the way men treat them?

That every time you walk down the street you get numerous catcalls, comments about your appearance, and insults?

That you occasionally get groped by strange women?

That all sorts of women who you do not feel a personal attraction for get visibly offended, and sometimes persist, when you do not respond positively to their advances?

Did I note just write "Everyone should be taught to respect everyone."? In any event, each and every one of these things actually happens to men (both from women and other men)! (Although in reverse order of frequency, in my experience.)

Huh? What you wrote at 1:05 made no sense.

"Or, you could just... concede that men and women have a social obligation to each other to treat each other with respect. That should not be a controversial claim."

Agreed.

"If you believe that men should be taught to respect women, then you are demanding that men be taught to respect women so that men actually respect women"

I'm pretty sure that second action described in quotes is pretty necessary for the first one to come about... Both men and women should be taught to respect each other. Respecting each other /does not/ include expecting (or feeling a "social obligation) to the time and attention of strangers of the opposite sex.

"In any event, each and every one of these things actually happens to men (both from women and other men)! (Although in reverse order of frequency, in my experience.)"

You mean to say that men do this to other men, more often than women do it to other men? That would seem to indicate that behavior of men is the biggest problem, wouldn't it?

And at any rate, I never said women /never/ do these things to men -but the fact is, men do it far more frequently to women than vice versa. And if men do it to men more than women do it to men, I would think you sort of know what I'm talking about...

"Actually, I took no position on your (just posited) scenario. I was critiquing Ann's ideal world for its far reaching implications. I don't think Ann's comment had anything to do with you sitting on the subway, unless you are a man entertaining thoughts she wants to regulate."

i'm pretty sure that is what this entire post has been about, a fact that you have conveniently chosen to ignore for ages now. it's entirely reasonable to interpret ann's words the way just about everyone else here has, instead of taking them to a larger context the way you have done.

no one uttered so much as a syllable regarding regulation of thoughts. not ann, not anyone here. the idea is that if the world were really more equal, or egalitarian as you are so fond of saying, NO ONE, man or woman, would ACT as though they feel they have a right to attention of a total stranger for a social purpose. it's not any more complicated than that.

also, please, for the love of god don't throw the first amendment around like it's even remotely applicable. i have no obligation, social or legal, to honor free speech; i'm not a government entity.

Respecting each other /does not/ include expecting (or feeling a "social obligation) to the time and attention of strangers of the opposite sex.

A. Grammatically, this makes no sense. You cannot feel a "social obligation to" something. You're trying to slot in "social obligation" in place of "right," but it doesn't work, both for prepositional reasons and because substantively I am not claiming men have a legal claim to women's time and attention. Rather, I am criticizing Ann's bounds of civility as incivil and demeaning toward men.

B. Your new argument isn't in fact what you wrote. What you wrote was "men are often not taught to respect women. That is what we're complaining about." That, to me, seems like a demand that men change their behavior.

You also attacked the concept of social obligation, noting "if you are saying you believe someone has a 'social obligation' to give you their time and attention, you are still demanding something from them. Hence 'ownership' is a very relevant concept..." If a demand on someone else's behavior entails a feeling of ownership, then your demand that men change their behavior entails a feeling of ownership. My point was that you are a hypocrite, not a true egalitarian.

You confirm this by noting, in reply to my statement that men are targets of what you described as undesireable behavior, both from men and women, "That would seem to indicate that behavior of men is the biggest problem, wouldn't it?" Well, no, it does not necessarily suggest that at all. It suggests nothing about the size of the population of people doing it. It may be the case that women are more frequent offenders than men in this area. Certainly, I know from experience that is the case in terms of: "That all sorts of women who you do not feel a personal attraction for get visibly offended, and sometimes persist, when you do not respond positively to their advances?" And, I have been groped one too many times by random women, and I know any number of men who complain, in private, of course, of bicep-pinching-like behavior. This is rather common. So you are assuming away the frequencies, without any proof, just to pose men's behavior as problematic so that it can be justifiably regulated; without any proof, you conclude "And at any rate, I never said women /never/ do these things to men -but the fact is, men do it far more frequently to women than vice versa." The point is, your claims are both:

1. Making demands on others entails thinking of them as property; and
2. Women are justified in making demands on men's behavior.

That would imply that you think of men as property in relation to women.

In any event, I don't agree that social obligation excludes basic human decency, such as regarding men as property. It would be consistent with the notion that men are property that they not speak unless spoken to and they must adopt whatever thoughts they are told are best for them.

A guy: "Or, you could just abandon your ownership argument and simply concede that men and women have a social obligation to each other to treat each other with respect."

OK so we've softened right to social obligation. Now, a RIGHT is something that one can choose NOT to exercise whereas an OBLIGATION implies a lack of choice, by duty or some other constraint. When obligations are not met, there are usually consequences. Again, problematic language and concept.

Question. Do you hold all other males to this social obligation? Do you hold all females to his social obligation or just the attractive ones. I ask in all seriousness.

Another thing is that men do have an implicit power over women. And that is the threat of physical violence. As many women can attest to, threats of violence practically nullifies even the most pleasant, respectful scenarios that we could hope for. Some women are polite out of fear.

I recognize that this dynamic exists between men, but I've yet to hear any expectation for men as a group to change their behavior and attitudes (eg. smiling and obligatory politeness) toward other men for the betterment of society.