France to fine men up to€750 for wolf-whistling, making sexual comments to women - Sensationalist Headlines

Your only "proof" for how it could be abused is a made-up situation that ignores the existing safeguards or dances around it like a drunk ballerina. The only thing that outrages me right now is the absolute and utter inability you have to look up a wikipedia article and the absolute synapse-destroying insanity of the trite you're spewing. The fact you consider a place an authoritarian hellhole because you're part of that statistically small amount of people who support the existence of street harassment tells fucking miles about your character. And your whole "we have to protect the women" shit doesn't work when the law is supported by, and pushed by, and voted by, women.

I'm sure the women you're looking out for will really appreciate you striking out against laws that exist to make life better for them. Trully, what will the fair maidens do without you, chasing away the white knights in your black armor.

Existing safeguards that you know don't work? Or is France supposed to be a country free of wrongful conviction and with a perfect police force now too? This is absurd. You're so enraged and busy trying on character assassination that you're overlooking basic reality, I don't know what to tell you but i will give one final attempt. Whistling at people on the street should not be prosecutable. Actual sexual harrassment is already illegal. If you think those existing codes are not broad enough or have loopholes and want them broader fine, find a law to post about that doesn't involve unnecessary, abusable authoritarian bullshit, then i'll be there supporting it with you. Until then, we will disagree.

Dude, if you're gonna keep at it. Do us all the favor of actually reading the bill.

I've been involved in situations where bad decisions that tried to make people safe made everything worse for the people involved many times. I'm sure you have to, its incredibly common. It has nothing to do with women specifically, it's a general problem with authoritarian governments, incompetent employers, hostile schooling enviornments right down to every level of human organization. These sort of flawed rules are way more common for the whole population rather than just women, it's the liberty and security debate with the extra expansion that the security is unenforceable. Repeating that I haven't read it doesn't make it true, it means you didnt take the same keys from it. You've ignorantly overlooked the potential for abuse and focus only on the positives. I weigh the potential for abuse much higher than the positives, it's really simple.

Funny thing is that there's essentially four main paradigms of refusal to criminalize street harassment as cited on wikipedia and mattk50 managed to not only shoehorn all of them in but fail to make even one of them sound coherent.

If you're gonna preach abuse of power at me as if I have no idea what that is, then I really don't know what to tell you there mate. But you're fucking painting France of all places as this authoritarian shithole because they are putting these laws. Here's a sobering fact for you. Every law has potential for abuse. Every legislation has potential for abuse. You pointing it out doesn't make you right, neither does it make you smart. The difference comes from the people enforcing the law. Which in this case, France has a pretty good track record. But go on. Live in your fantasy world where you are championing free speech or whatever you think it is all around the world, by saying that countries you know jack shit about are turning authoritarian. Fucking therm has been devalued over the past few years anyway.

I like this one, apparantly a study has been done on the public opinion of this, the majority of women agree with my position according to this study cited in this sentence, 61% don't beleive it's a legal problem, instead a social problem. which is what i went into discussing the need to focus on reducing crime rates first through poverty, education etc. Has the impotent rage died down? Did you go back and read any of my posts yet? Contrary to popular belief, it is not just those who are unaffected by street harassment that hold this ideal, victims and survivors of offensive speech and hate speech are reluctant to advocate against this First Amendment right. Adversely, the public is hesitant to rely on the law in their daily lives as they prefer autonomy, regardless of how grave the situation may be. Page 17 for that stat: http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.nyu.edu/stable/pdf/3115131.pdf?refreqid=search%3A945f484bf714508e96d669e48d2e0bdb

Citing studies that people can't access isn't really proving things my man. I can do that too.

Shouting sexual obscenities is punishable in the workplace, why not in public? What do you have against street harassment laws, c'mon, gimmie something good and logical to work with. All I'm seeing is a bunch of slippery slopes. It's easy for men to say cat-calling is bad in a study but that doesn't change the fact that being sexually suggested at is very uncomfortable and extremely predatory and the majority of offenders are male.

Mattk50 have you ever actually sat down to listen to a woman's experiences

Is also something that you can't really do by accident

You can access jstor if you want to, you get several free articles by signing up. I don't really see the purpose of trying this "women agree with me not you" shit, again, right after i cite something that proves a majority of women think in line with what i''ve been posting. I don't think "wow just sit down and talk to women :^)" is even approaching a decent argument, even with the stats on my side. Maybe you'll actually respond to my points now? Probably not, i guess.

Yeah, that's totally what I said. You aren't at all responding to a hyperbole that wasn't stated by a single person in the thread. There is no circle. I don't talk to other people about this stuff ever, other than just my girlfriend... and we absolutely aren't drumming one another up. I didn't say that everyone is concerned with it. I said that it reminds people of that, which makes them uncomfortable of being alone in public, particularly later in the day. You are literally pulling a "living in fear" narrative right out of your ass.

You know, it's funny, I asked my grandma what she thought about all this stuff based on her experience growing up through her teenage years and early 20s in the 1950s and 60s. She said that people would wolf whistle, but that it was kind of a game. She said that she enjoyed the attention, and knew that they were almost always doing it in a kind of fun way. She never saw it as a threatening thing at all. So, here's a woman's experience, living in an era with a hell of a lot less protections for women, that doesn't quite go with the narrative you're presenting. I've also spoken to many of the younger women I know, and they don't seem to have as much of a problem as people here are making it out to be.

It's literally a link from the wikipedia article ganuermo responded to me with. I've fixed the redirect URL for your usage. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3115131 I absolutely hate when people pretend to be speaking for every women with this "wow just talk to women shit". It's a dead line of argument when i already know better from both the stats and from my own real experiences, if i tell you I've already had a laugh about this article with female friends its like what, am i supposed to be citing their experience here? Are you going to start accusing them of being gendered uncle toms? The "wow just talk to women" is nothing but a transparent character attack. There is no valid response because at any moment there's going to be women that agree or disagree. I don't consider this line of argument valid proof for my own argument, but i do consider the fact that the majority agree with me a complete refutation of this "talk to women" bullshit. Like i said literal pages ago people have different circles of friends and mine may not agree with yours and thats perfectly fine. You think my circle is new york university? Doesn't this tell you anything else?

What? I'm not trying to win a debate with an anecdote, I'm saying that I actually believe that if you talk to your female peers about this that your opinion will change. I have literally no idea what this is trying to say at all.

You're insisting that the only reason i hold the opinion i do is because i must not spoken enough to women is a really transparent character attack based on an anecdote. I already said in the thread my circle agrees with me. Do you want me to start citing women i know? This is rediculous. Not only does the majority agree with me as proven in my citation (and not contradicted by yours by the way, by point is that the majority of women don't think it should be enforced legally, not that street harrassment doesnt exist), imagine what this looks like to a women who disagrees with you, have a flexible perspective. I'm having a laugh at your expense with the circles thing. You think that because i have library access to jstor through NYC's libraries i'm at NYU. I've already said in a previous post my circle agrees with me, yes, that includes women. Does this mean the progressive position is actually not to baby women through abridgement of right? Decide for yourself. It's funny how you intellectually bankrupt SJW types always make doxing attempts during discussions but in this case it's working against you.

My post literally said, first thing, that I didn't expect you to cite that stuff and that I wasn't using it in the context of debate. My source absolutely disagrees with yours. Mine shows that there are clear, present side effects of being the victim of street harassment. What the general populace thinks should or shouldn't be legal really has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual affects of said harassment. I never said that all women wanted it banned, I said that pretty much all women living in urban areas will tell you that it is in fact harassment. What? oh my fucking god lmao are you serious right now? How is that in any way a "doxing" attempt? Also, I'm not a "SJW" type. At all. Even a cursory glance through my post history will confirm this.

You're using a lot of double talk. You say you don't want me to cite women around me while you assert that speaking to women around me would change my opinion. Obviously to prove such a statement wrong i would need to cite women around me. I guess what you mean to say is "im right, dont disagree"??? You're completely failing to understand what each source says. My source agrees with your source in terms of the statistics you're talking about. — 85 % had first experienced some form of stranger harassment prior to age 17, and that stranger harassment had palpable effects on women’s behavior, as stranger harassment experiences have prompted women to alter their transportation routes or means (85 % of respondents), avoid particular cities or areas altogether (72 %), avoid going out at night (70 %), and change socialization patterns to avoid specific people (63 %; Livingston 2015). My source agrees with the general theme of these even though it's a different study.. 61% of women reported receiving sexually suggestive speech in public often, 75% of people agreed that it's a social problem. Your source has nothing to say about whether or not women want there to be legal concequences to street harrassment though. Mine does. Considering the context of this discussion, whether or not a law to enforce it is desirable is a key point. We agree you shouldnt yell at women on the street, we disagree over whether it should be illegal. 61% of the respondent women were opposed to legal limits. 58% of men were opposed to legal limits. I quote, "However, women are less likely than men to favor the legal regulation of sexually suggestive speech in public places. In addition, most of the women and men who compose this sample agreed that sexually suggestive speech poses a serious social problem." "When asked generally about the regulation of offensive public speech, only 12% of respondents favored legal regulation" You tried to make an assertion about my place of employment based on the fact that i have NYC library access and made an argument based on your guess. You dont get to backpedal from this.

If you want to read my post without attempting to extract meaning from it, sure. Your source has absolutely nothing to do with what was being debated; whether or not these actions have long-lasting and adverse affects on those that are the target of them. I wasn't arguing that "Women all agree that this should be banned", I said that most women you talk to will readily agree that it's a problem... Which my source backs up. I don't really see how it being a social vs legislative issue is even remotely relevant. You're pivoted from your original point straight to hitting up a strawman. Your original post that I replied to had you claim that if a woman fears for her safety while being catcalled, she's overreacting and that that's not the norm. My study shows that this is way more common than you claim. To cite my source again, stranger harassment experiences result in— among other things— self-objectification, increased fear, a heightened perceived risk of rape, and avoidant behaviors It really doesn't matter what a lot of women do or don't want in terms of legislation in the context of the discussion that was actually happening. I didn't make an assertion on your place of employment, I assumed that you were a student. I didn't "make an argument" from that, I was stating the fact that street harassment is a problem in NYC and since you were linking to a study that I hope you accessed to before citing, that was a fairly safe assumption to make. It isn't a dox, and there's absolutely nothing to backpedal from. But honestly at this point it's clear that you didn't even read the source that you cited (which wasn't even relevant to the discussion), so I'm not really sure what you're playing here other than the confirmation bias game.

This is a thread about legal limits on unsolicated sexually suggestive speech in public and this whole time i've been writing posts about whether or not it's acceptable to have legal limits on this speech, and you've been suggesting that if only i'd "spoken to women" my opinions on this topic would be widely different. My apparant ability to make multiple direct quotes to source i didn't read is impressive.

Demonstrably untrue Those comments were solely related to the part of your posts that were implying that it's not serious, i.e. the above. You were clearly able to cite from it after you found the accessible version, but my assumption that you lived in NYC based off of the fact that you linked an internal library resource was 100% reasonable; it's just simple logical deduction. If you in fact are not a student or faculty member that otherwise has access to the library resources, I'm not sure how you could have possibly read the source before you posted it the first time.

It the source was from the wikipedia article gan posted you nutter. I also gave you page specific citation for what i was saying was on that page. The context of that quote is refuting the idea that women are so terrified that they need legal protection, the majority doesnt want this, as demonstrated. The entire chain of discussion is about this topic. You can follow a chain and circuitously find a sentence that doesnt mention the main point it but look at what thread we're in.

Christ, it's like you're completely incapable of having anything resembling a respectful discussion. The entire thread, you've been arguing from the angle of "It's not that harmful; get over it". Statements like this are exactly what I'm talking about. Which is what I was refuting. If you want to pretend that you were arguing from a different angle, then that's your choice.

Take into account the nostalgia factor and also the fact that times change. Your grandma was young several generations ago and the youth of today react to attention in a very different way because culture has evolved. I'd have to actually do some research on it but at first glance I'd say part of the reason for this is that the result of living in a society which promotes sexual freedom far more than it did 60 years ago means that sexual advances are taken far more seriously because they mean more.

What about women wolf-whistling/making sexual comments to men

The law's gender neutral, that's been pointed out in this thread already.

Twice