um, the comments on that kitty pic are bumming me OUT.
Thank you, Anne. This needed to be said.
Let me see if the advice of a previous commenter actually works. Pretend I am looking you straight in the eye with my shoulders squared. YOUR BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. PLEASE STOP DRY HUMPING MY LEG AND NEVER TREAT ANY WOMAN THAT WAY EVER AGAIN.
Wait, maybe you have a particular attraction to crazy cat ladies and this line normally works for you. In which case I should probably not ruin your future crazy cat lady romances by telling you to stop your current behavior. I should probably just smile demurely and get off the bus so you don't mistakenly get turned on by my flirtation or get pissed off by my negative and agressive attitude.
I am thrilled to hear that you don't condone stranger on stranger harassment.
We can agree to disagree about the relative moral weight of minor physical violence vs. persistent verbal abuse and sexual harassment.
You want me to address your main point, which is that women bear some responsibility for encouraging the behavior of men who catcall because some women like that sort of thing.
I will agree with you that we all, both women and men, have power to affect change in this arena and it is not only a masculine responsibility. I will further agree with you that flirtation/harrassment has a lot of grey area in it. I personally would be happy to draw a boundary that is artificially narrow and means that I occasionally miss out on a genuine compliment that would make my day if it means I never again have to worry about whether that creeper making comments about my ass is going to follow me home because I didn't appreciate his advances.
The women who wrote this article (and are commenting on this thread) are doing their part by asking you (and everyone reading this) to do something to change this culture. They are raising the issue in order to get a dialogue started that can change attitudes.
How can you do something to help change the culture? Especially since you don't happen to know anyone who harasses women?
You could start by telling Clarkson, a complete stranger, that his behavior is unacceptable and that even though he appears to be defending you he is not on your side.
And then you could choose to disagree with me without resorting to name calling because your the kind of man who demonstrates respect no matter what the circumstances.
Those are two things you could do immediately that would help stop harassment. And if you do that, I will cheerfully agree to advocate for women treating men respectfully, whether or not they are sexually attracted to them. Deal?
Hold the phone. A moral equivalency has been created between a guy who "threatens and intimidates hundreds of people" and the woman who "rewards that behavior" by "responding positively to a crude comment." In this logic, I should be able to stand on the street and shoot every passerby in the neck with a staple gun because, you know, maybe one of them will fall in love with me because of it. And if they do, they will single handedly become responsible for the hundreds of staple gun injuries I have inflicted waiting for them to show up.
Doesn't it seem like there might be some way to find a person to have sex with that doesn't involve injuring hundreds of people on the off chance one of them might have an injury fetish?
In another comment, we hear "don't be rude, because that might be seen as flirtatious" and "don't be passive because that might be seen as attraction." Also implied is "don't be aggressive because that might be seen as a being a bitch and lead to post-harassment stalking."
Is there any way for a women to respond to a public comment/grope/leer from a stranger that won't be seen as a flirtation by some guy? My guess based on years of personal experience is no.
The suggested answer seems to be "just grin and bear it girls- it is your responsibility to suffer repeated daily threatening behaviors with grace and politeness in order to protect the right of every man to get attention from a woman they find attractive."
I suppose it was obvious when this article was posted that every rape apologist on the planet would swoop in for a round of "women just can't take a compliment" and "maybe you wouldn't get harrassed so much if you would just stop being flirtatious by simply existing in public."
The correct answer is actually: Give compliments to women you know. Receive permission to engage in conversation with women you don't know. Develop interesting skills, hobbies and a fulfilling life that bring you into contact with women who share your interests and are likely to find you sexually attractive once they get to know you. If they do not find you attractive once they get to know you, assume that it is YOU who needs to do something different, not them. Understand in a deep and meaningful way, that if you treat every woman, no matter what she looks like, like she is a busy, powerful and interesting human being who does not want to sleep with you, then any genuine flirtation you receive will be all the more meaningful and actionable for being unsolicited and unambiguous.
Stop writing reviews that so poorly reflect my actual experience of seeing the movie and I'll start considering ranking your thoughts up there alongside the fairly reliable "if my mom hated it I'm pretty sure I'll love it" rule of thumb I usually use.
The irony is, Frankie, that regular arts instruction is scientifically proven to increase math and science scores, improve attendence and graduation rates and create learners who are better equipped for higher level courses in high school and college. Turns out that spending money on arts education is actually better at raising science and math achievement than spending money on more math teachers.
It also has a side benefit of encouraging empathy (which provably lowers bullying behavior), curiosity (fundamental to the scientific process) and spatial reasoning skills (necessary for higher level math). So, yeah. Nobody's asking you to pay to make more unemployed painters. They're actually asking you to level the playing field so kids whose moms can't afford to send them to piano lessons still have a shot at graduating and succeeding in math and science.
Opposite of the expected result, indeed.
There are extremely clear national studies that demonstrate that the existence of guns in a home or building dramatically increase the statistical risk of death by suicide or homicide in that building. Here's the link to the study: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/…
So an armed teacher does not make a school safer- statistically, it creates a 5-fold increase in the chance that a student or teacher in that school will die by gunshot wound.
And the Clackamas potential vigilante did not use his gun because he "couldn't get a clear shot," so his presence was irrelevant to the number of deaths, and in fact had the potential to increase the number of deaths, which he himself pointed out. The shooter's gun jammed. The end.
The presence of a gun dramatically increases the risk of gun violence. Also the end. Kids learn codes, unlock drawers and get hold of firearms that are supposed to be "safely out of the way" all the time. It's MUCH more common for them to die by accidental gunfire from "playing" with a gun they found then by mass shooting. So it is not obvious that an armed teacher would have prevented those deaths, which occurred in a matter of seconds and it has been demonstrated in trustworthy non-partisan studies that the presence of a gun dramatically increases the chance that someone will die by gunfire in that space.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |