Talk:Street harassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Improper Defintion?

I changed the following sentence: In the United States, the most common form of street harassment is staring. My reasoning is that simply staring is not harassment, simply acknowledgement of beauty or attractiveness. The Radical feminists will probably call me a male chauvanist for this, but if I were in that situation I would most definently take it as a compliment, and not something "scary".

BTW, I also agree with twestgard, as his statements are quite true, and the Feminists do take everything directed at them overly seriously. FE, if someone calls me a sexy beast or something, I would laugh and take it as a compliment, but they would screech out "Sexual Harassment!", and sue the person.

[edit] Innate Bias

I'll probably get flamed for this, but there seems to be a kind of self-righteousness attached to the idea of street harassment being substantively different from all other forms of human interaction. IMHO, it's routine bullying with a dollops of old-fashioned sexual aggression and gender bias thrown in. This article was created when Holla Back NYC put up a notation on their website, requesting that people create & contribute to this article. That's a good way to get an article started, but not terribly conducive to NPOV or other Wikipedia standards. I wish the same level of attention were paid to various types of schoolyard bullying (a long article could be written on dodgeball, and another on picking teams), but NPOV is generally not used to balance multiple articles. twestgard


---


REPLY: It makes a woman feel vunerable and worthless when I guy says: B***, take off your top! That isn't a compliment. It's disgusting, and a person can feel awful about themselves. It's horrible when a guy backs you up into a corner and won't let you go 'till you- THAT IS HARRASMENT. IT IS ALSO BULLYING, BY THE WAY.

And I also suppose you think that getting raped means Miss America? It doesn't.

[edit] Article Bias

Article readers: this article is under heavy revision by one or more people undeniably identifying themselves as "activists." As I have a job, I can't continually monitor the article, but I strongly recommend you examine my revisions before accepting this article at face value. See also: systematic bias. Best, Naif 00:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I do encourage anybody who reads this page to contribute and refine, I do believe that above user Naif is targeting this page on unfounded and highly controversial terms. Please read his profile before making any alterations on his behalf, as he is also an "activist" by his own definition. --Colin.weatherby 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Nevertheless, please be aware of your own biases; I've had to cut substantial amounts of biased material by both sides here. Ambi 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Article readers, note that "Colin.weatherby" is a self-described founder of an activist movement and "an advocate for alternative transportation issues," whatever that is. He has been editing for all of 48 hours now, which means he began editing AFTER the recent POV edit debate on this article, and his very few edits to date on Wikipedia have been solely on the subjects of his activism. I repeat, this article is under heavy revision by activists on the issue, who seem to have a singular inability to understand that unbiased articles are written by people who have no stake in the issue. Although I admit I prefer the logical thinking of men to that of women, I am not a street harasser by any definition and have never been one, so there is a small but real possibility that I bring less bias to this issue. - Naif 11:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Naif, however, armed with his pure, masculine rationality, is undoubtedly a thoroughly-qualified defender of the site against these "activists," as demonstrated by his profile assertion that "Men have a higher capacity for pure [rational thought]] than women, as evidenced by the fact that 99% of mathematical and physics (i.e., pure logic) breakthroughs have been the accomplishment of XY-chromosome brains." An infallibly rational conclusion.

Please do note his revisions before accepting anything on this page at face value, there are some real winners. WisteriaStone 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Article readers, please note user WisteriaStone has made all of six or seven edits in his/her editing contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been on political topics. Because I have outside responsibilities, I cannot continually monitor this article, but any cursory review will show the heavy and ongoing pressing of an activist agenda that hasn't even thought out the long-term consequences of its "interventions" (taking pictures of alleged harassers by cameraphone). Clearly if basic social etiquette against taking pictures of strangers is challenged too strongly, street harassers themselves will start taking pictures of random women, and you can thank Holla Back NYC for that. -Naif 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently stumbled upon this site and read the discussion after seeing the "contested neutrality" logo on the main page. This stuck me as quite funny, as the neutrality of the majority things is most definitely contested, and generally claims to "objectivity" are simply attempts by various political actors to legitimize their projects.

I find this entire project of aiming to eradicate "bias" and demanding "neutral" articles extremely interesting. I have not read up on Wiki's official stance on this, but it seems to reflect Ambi's comment above as far as I can tell. This seems to work fine for less contested issues, but is not well suited to or robust enough for more contentious topics.

For instance, this "sexual terrorism" business, which Ambi cut. On the one hand, the term itself does sound extreme and is quite uncommon. From what I understand, though, this particular use originated before 9/11 and the 'War on Terror," which gave the language of terrorism quite a different set of connotations in the US. I could see why someone would think calling street harassment "a form of terrorism" illegitimate.

However, as a gay man who has spent weeks in the hospital after suffering a severe anti-gay-motivated beating, I can offer a different perspective. I can tell you that after months of walking home from work at night, being regularly followed through dark streets by groups of gay-bashers and not knowing if I will make it home alive, the term "terrorism" to describe some people's experiences on the streets not longer sounds so insane. All this to say that one person's "nonsense" is another's lived reality. Of course, I can't speak for women who experience harassment from men, but many accounts I have heard are not too different.

Honestly, in looking over the history of this page, I really couldn't find anything so terribly suspect and activist, until argumentative responses stared appearing to Naif's polemics and the site got cluttered up. Yet I'm sure lots of folks would disagree - we can surely find a large mass of people who would contest even the term "harassment" as biased, as it indicates fault rather than some kind of self-expression. It appears that in practice the line is drawn at some kind of loosely commonly-accepted knowledge (which, to be sure, was itself at one point controversial), but who decides what exactly this is is random. It is also evident from this site that the anti-bias criteria really only works to eliminate the most poorly-phrased and extremist polemics, failing to detect slightly more carefully worded ones (this weird marriage/race stuff and vague claims to Kantian universalism, for example).

In the end, resolving these issues by trying to eliminate "bias" seems to simply privilege some positions over others, while perhaps getting rid of the most blatently inappropriate entries which could be vandalism anyhow. This isn't meant to be hostile, Ambi - I appreciate your involvement in the Wiki project and attempts to make it better. Just thoughts from someone struggling with the same kind of issues. Best, SysOp2006 00:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We're certainly not perfect: our goal is not to privilege one position over any other, but sometimes it happens inadvertently, and this article is a fine example of where things have become seriously unbalanced. I see where you're getting at with the "sexual terrorism" quote, believe me, but I think to use it in the lead section, without contextual discussion, just comes across as agenda-pushing hyperbole. It may be something better discussed down the page, where it could more easily be given a neutral treatment. Finally, I know achieving a neutral treatment of a controversial topic can be particularly difficul, but with effort it can and does work (Wikipedia:Featured articles has some good examples of this). Ambi 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Sysop2006, for your very measured and rational response. I've addressed the "terrorism/conformity" issue further on your talk page. -Naif 16 December 2005
What the hell are you people talking about?? What activist conspiracy? All I see is one sexist half-wit wasting a lot of people's time and being legitimated by all this "bias on both sides" "contested neutrality" nonsense.

I just looked at the history: all of this started when a single user, Naif, began vandalizing with nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims. After Wiki's "bias purge," the page looks pretty much the same as it did before Naif got involved, except the articles cited no longer have their annotations. Come on! Do everyone who's trying to get some real information a favor and stop legitimizing these vandals.

Let me also save Mr. Rationality the trouble: I have made numerous changes in Wiki and the world, all of them (gasp) political. While I have nothing to do with this HollaBackNYC project, I wish I did - I checked out the site and it is awesome! --JJStar 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I unfortunately have to point out that this editor "JJStar" has completed all of two edits. I do note also that calling somebody a "half-wit" is name-calling and argumentum ad hominem. Instead of making verifiably counterfactual claims about the edit history and general exhortations to rally your fellow activists, how about directly addressing the issues? But in any case, activists, I'm throwing in the towel...I won't touch "your" page any more. -Naif 16 December 2005

Can someone attribute this claim that New York City women are harassed as often as every two blocks?

[edit] "Racism" issue

Soon after Holla Back NYC, a nobly-motivated organization of high-minded, highly-educated men and women began allowing victims of street harassment to post pictures of their vicious attackers on the Internet, an unpleasant truth was uncovered: women of European or other original were more likely to be targeted for vicious verbal assaults and sexual taunts by African- or Hispanic- American men than by European-American men, reflecting a US-wide trend for there to be an approximately 10:1 ratio of black men-white women relationships vis-a-vis white men-black women. (See Census statistics) In the heat of the moment, some untoward comments were made by the women, which led to an immediate counter-assault by so-called "People of Color" activists, who insisted that any characterization of "men of color" as "sexual predators" was purely a "construction." These activist have seized control of part of this street harassment entry, and refuse to acknowledge basic realities of black-white sexual interactions. Tant pis. -Naif 16 December 2005

Two plus four does not equal nine. Ambi 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. - Naif 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
More specifically, drawing a line between more African-American men dating white women than white men dating African-American women and African-American men being "sexual predators" makes no sense. Furthermore, drawing a connection between that and anything to do with this article makes even less sense. Ambi 03:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the literal content of your first sentence. However, if you read the actual article section, the article's activist editors have clearly tried to present the differential statistics regarding street harassment as specifically related only to historical wrong and not reflecting actual race/sex dynamics. - Naif 03:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
What evidence have you provided for this apart from your own assertion? Ambi 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Despite my best attempts to offer some balance, we have now, admittedly slightly better than before, but still: "Some activists argue that there exist widespread fictions regarding who perpetrators are: the myth of racial minorities, particularly Hispanic or black men, as prototypical rapist as well as more prone to violence is quite common." Do I really need to track down the Census data showing a 10:1 ratio of "black" men-"white" women marriages to the converse? Do I need to track down the data which shows "black" men commit more violent crimes than non-"black" men? Please. Let's not let political correctness blind us to basic facts about the landscape of American society. -Naif 06:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Once again, two plus four does not equal nine. What do interracial marriage statistics have to do with your allegations that black men are more likely be perpetrators of sexual harassment? The connection doesn't make any sense. Ambi 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've removed much of this article

This article was full of original research, weasel words, unverifiable claims, POV text, and included off topic links. I've removed most of it. In particular, all the racial theorizing is off topic and belongs in other articles. --Xyzzyplugh 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How's telling a woman to smile, street harrassment? I don't get it!

[edit] This is not a neutral article (even with the removals)

The term "street harassment" is a recent invention of certain fringe segments of organized feminism, in an effort to further demonize (and potentially even criminalize) behaviors that are, in large measure, normal for males (as well as females, one should add). I, for instance, have been in the receiving end of catcalls by females (and sometimes males), and have never considered it harassment nor anything less than the compliment it was intended as (such as "free booty call here!" from a girl I was running past or "nice posture!" or whooping by a gang of girls in a car passing by or a butt-grab by a horny girl in a nightclub). Around here, that's perfectly normal for the girl to do the catcalling, as well as the other way around. There are numerous areas in society where it is perfectly normal -- female on male, as well as male on female; for instance, black society, hispanic society, or areas that are predominantly catholic, or even cities well-known for the friendliness of its residents, like Milwaukee; and it's a cultural thing. Other parts of society (which some may regard as simply being more hard-up and morally conservative, notwithstanding their politically liberal slant) may have a problem with it, particularly the WASP middle to upper classes and the academia in the Northeast where many of the feminists attempting to demonize this issue hail from.

The term should be explictly noted as being little more than the shibboleth of certain fringe constituencies that has no currency amongst the general population; and it may also be considered part of a larger movement to instill a regime of political correctness (which has started attracting the attention of human rights watch groups, as noted below).

More research needs to be done (and noted) in the article concerning the history behind this social engineering movement and the other aspects of the issue; for the language and terminology "street harassment" is not in general usage or acceptance outside a very narrow constituency. The invention was brought about by feminist legal theorists and is, indeed, explicitly noted as a social engineering project by those involved in the effort. A good place to start is the "Street Harassment Project" website (http://www.streetharassment.org). Note the biased language even present in its declaration, by the way: "fighting the [sic] sexual harassment of women (and perceived women) by men in public spaces". If the advocacy were anything less than disingenuously hypocritical, it would have been stated in gender neutral language as "fighting the sexual harassment of people by others in public spaces". This is one of the ways you can tell that the specific intent is to demonize men under the false pretext of social propriety. This is also seen in the explicit gender-specific language cited below.

Another place to look is the "anti-street harassment uk" site (http://www.anti-harassment.ik.com"), which also makes explicit its intent as a group of feminists to ramrod this pretext through society by social engineering: "we are a group of feminists to challenge [sic] public sexual harassment through [sic] consciousness raising and activism" (i.e. through "reeducation and reindoctrination").

It is considered a part of feminist legal theory and is discussed in these settings. A good example may be found by reviewing the curriculum vitae of various feminist legal theorists (particularly those who have graduated from the northeastern Universities), such as Cynthia Grant Bowman (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/bowman/bowmcv.html or a cite of one of her articles at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/Safe-T-Man.html) or a cite "Street Harassment as [sic] sexual subordination: The phenomonology of [sic] gender-specific harm", Wisconsin Women's Law Journal 12 (Fall), 167-206, from 1997 by Deborah Tuerkheimer.

(As a data-point: most catcalls I've witnessed in person, in fact, have been female to male (sometimes with me on the receiving end), not the other way around -- which only underscores the hypocritical bias of the stance advocated in the latter paper. If anything, it's women I've learned the behavior from.)

Predictably enough, both theorists come straight out of the northeast, well-known for its Victorian hard-uppedness: Bowman from Swarthmore in Pennsylvania; Tuerkheimer from Harvard; with Tuerkheimer at the University of Maine Law School, last I checked.

It should also be linked to the larger censorship movement it is part of, known as "Political Correctness", that has run rampant on campuses. No less than the Freedom House human rights watch organization has put the United States on report on this account (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6858) "a number of the country's prestigious universities have adopted policies of 'political correctness' intended to combat harassment against traditionally marginalized groups. However, such policies are controversial as they may restrict the expression of opinions, uusually voiced by political conservatives, that diverge from mainstream campus views..." which is the larger context that the street harassment issue arises from. "Women are heavily represented in the law, medicine, and journalism, and predominate in the university programs that train students for these professions", which both undercuts the pretext of "traditionally marginalized group" underlying the stance behind "street harassment" exposing its hypocrisy, and bodes potentially ill for the future, should a large enough number of the ranks of these graduating classes come to align themselves with the warped perspective engendered (pun intended) by the fringe extreme amongst feminist legal theorists. It has also attracted the attention of the Department of Labor who, in its occupational outlook for College faculty, makes explicit note of the growing hazard.

I'm sorry to tell you, but "street harassment"/catcalls aren't uncomfortable for people because they're dirty, hairy feminists; it's a disrespect for that person's dignity and boundaries. This page's description includes this sentence: "The victim's reaction, which will vary depending on circumstances, will not be positive." I took that to mean that "street harassment" doesn't include positive flirtation, it's referring to unwelcome attention. Whether this behavior is "normal" for anyone or not, continuing that behavior when the other party is obviously uncomfortable or frightened is harassment. However, to be truly NPOV the other side of this issue should be represented also, as long as it doesn't try to condone this behavior. 209.40.189.180 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

I would like if this page had some explanation why telling a woman to smile is sexual harrassment. Because round where I'm from, people (regardless of gender) tell eachother to smile all the time, if they're looking glum. If there's some kind of implied meaning behind telling people to smile that doesn't exist in my part of the English-speaking world, I think it merits inclusion here. Generalmiaow 02:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the person who originally put that into the article, but I can see why some people think it should be here and why others think it's confusing. A lot of harassers use phrases like "smile, sweetheart" along with their other, more demeaning actions--so when a person has heard it in the context of being harrassed, it's hard to separate it from that. On the other hand, with some people it's most likely just an sweet, innocent comment. I'm not sure how to explain any of this right. 172.145.192.23 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand now and I can relate to it, but without an explanation on the page it is simply too confusing. Thus I am removing it. I would suggest a more general term that covers telling people to smile in the context of sexual harrassment, such as one from a citable source... Generalmiaow 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better image for the article

The image for the Japanese train cars isn't appropriate because the article is about street harassment, and the article is specific that this is verbal harassment. The train cars are for women to avoid chikan, which is groping in Japan. Chikan is physical, not verbal, and it has it's own article here at Wikipedia. (The problem is so pervasive that men are being banned altogether from stores and restaurants, and other businesses, too.)

Better images to include would be some from the street harassment groups mentioned in the article, such as Hollaback and the Blank Noise Project. I'm sure they would give permission to upload their images, particularly since I understand it's one of these groups that created the article in the first place. Aine63 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double standard

Even the article states that women can also engage in street harassment--we've all seen it happen time and time again--so the article should have a gender-neutral focus. (It is pure feminist propaganda that women aren't as bullying as men are.) Aine63 05:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If I'm not mistaken, that old Salt and Peppa video for "Shoop" was completely about street harassment of men. LOL Or, maybe I'm remembering it wrong. Good song, though :) Aine63 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I edited a sentence near the beginning, stating that female on male harrassment doesn't carry the implicit threat of rape or assault present in male on female situations. This is a highly biased sentence, since--especially among young teenagers--female on male situations can get quite rough, and may even constitute a psychological rape, even if physical rape is unprevalent, and since the kinds of street harrassment described in this article--sounding the horn of the car, or catcalls--are more often than not simply rude displays of machismo without real threat value. Wilderns 5 November 2006
  • Wilderns, when you live your life as a female and have to go through the world wondering if taking a walk down the street will result in a honking car stopping to gang rape you, then you can have an opinion on what women are allowed to have as women's issues. I really don't think you will ever have to have that thought in the back of your mind. When you as a male have to feel antsy by keeping in the back of your mind the location of each woman in the street as someone who may brutalize or rape you, instead of being able to take that walk without a care in the world, then you can tell me about how gender neutral this issue is. Banjotime 20 March 2007

[edit] On propsed merger

If this article is merged at all, it should be into Sexual harassment, since the definition is that street harassment is a form of sexual harassment.Aine63 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Can we propose a merger while another one is being discussed?
  • Good question, don't know. But there does not appear to be any discussion at all on the existing proposal. I don't know when the proposal was made, but it seems pretty dead to me. If this is the case, can it simply be closed?
I've already added "street harasser" as an example of "The Great Gallant" harasser under Varied behaviors and circumstances) So, the merge would be a natural move at this point. We could give the issue it's own section, like "Sexualized environments" and "Rituals and initiations." I don't really care one way or the other if there is a merger for Street harassment but if there is, Sexual harassment is the place to go. It seems like the only reason Street harassment is novel enough for it's own article is because of groups like Hollaback and what they are doing. I don't know if this is enough of a novelty, though. Aine63 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

They really are two separate things, and objectification deserves its own special mention Reillyd 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, objectification and street harassment can be two wildly different things. This one's been dead for a while. Changing the merge with objectification proposal to merge with sexual harassment. -- DSGruss 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Article merged. Since 90% fails to meet WP:NOT, WP:ATT, and WP:NPOV, I've kept the "reading" section for integration into sexual harassment.

Articles:

Books:

[edit] NPOV

The statement "Women get harassed no matter how they are dressed despite commonly made arguments to the contrary." seems to be leftover from a previous edit war upon inspection of the article history. Suggest checking the entire article incase article is not merged. 24.160.206.18 06:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)