I’m getting a little bored of men telling me whether I should find something offensive or not. All this ‘ladies, wolf whistling is a COMPLIMENT’. Listen, it’s not you being wolf whistled at, and lots of women feel intimidated by being wolf whistled by a stranger in the street. Not all women. But some of them. Being made to feel intimidated because of your race, sex, class – that’s what harassment is. Deal with it.

It’s not men like these right to pass comment on how women look when they’re walking down the street. I’m shocked you claim not to practice this (because deep down you know it’s wrong?) but still feel the need to defend it. It is unwanted sexual attention, we don’t want to know what you think about how we look, or if you find us attractive, it’s an invasive intrusion on our day. And as the other comments have mentioned it can often escalate into much more dangerous behaviour.

There is nothing genuine about a wolf wistle or any of those kinds of ‘compliments’ they’re generic and have very little to do with the women and what they’re like as a person.

Some girls like it. You cant generalise these things. i.e. at 12:00pm lunch time during the week a wolf whistle is “Harassment” but 12:00am on a Saturday Night a wolf whistle is complimentary and on most occasions flattering to women out on a good night, dressed to please and looking for “love” or “distraction”

Again another attempt by the PC police to control what and when we do things….

Maybe its cultural then…Do you not dress to please… would you go out looking like death on legs?

All I was saying is women who like to go out in town at the weekend “in general” like to be noticed…. this is a fair comment in UK cities…. and in response to your question “Do you actually get dates this way?” This was how I met my wife, and before you comment on what kind of lady she is, the wife is a respected professional!

No, ignoring it doens’t get rid of it… hence my campaign.

SuperDa “. You can choose to ignore it. You’ll find ignoring an action intent on causing reaction is the best way to get rid of it… right?”
You obviously didn’t read or understand my comment above. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. Ignoring it can lead to escalating levels of harrassment and sometimes violence.

Are you really saying that women go out dressed to be ‘noticed’ and are therefore inviting harrassment?

I’ll just echo Vicky’s sentiments – if women are saying they find it threatening, insulting or uncomfortable maybe you should actually believe them instead of insisting that you know better and it’s complimentary.

“I really think you have misinterpreted the LASH campaign…”

How? I was asked to comment on men whistling at women and whether it’s harassment or not; I merely opined that it isn’t. I didn’t mention LASH at all.

“It tends to be disgusting, crude, aggressive men who leer at … vulnerable women as they walk along the street at night.”

Agree. That has nothing to do with my point that it doesn’t constitute harassment. I mentioned I think it’s “classless”, and I think it is. But it isn’t harassment!

“I really wish you had looked into this a bit more before airing your “right to free speech” just for the sake of it.”

Looked into what? Again, you’re reading into my comments what isn’t there.

“I’m getting a little bored of men telling me whether I should find something offensive or not.”

I’m offended by that statement. (Don’t you have an opinion on whether or not I should be?)

“lots of women feel intimidated by being wolf whistled by a stranger in the street.”

The question is whether it’s harassment, and in the vast majority of cases where men feel they’re giving a compliment (whether it’s received that way or not), it’s not.

“Being made to feel intimidated because of your race, sex, class – that’s what harassment is. Deal with it.”

Deal with what? I’m dealing with the subject by virtue of talking about it. If you think writing “Deal with it” after a sentence somehow validates your argument, you’re mistaken.

“The problem is that the women don’t know if it’s going to stop at the wolf whistle.”

But couldn’t we say the same about many of the other things men do in response to their attraction to women? We could say, ‘The problem is that the women don’t know if it’s going to stop at a chat-up line.’ Are chat-up lines therefore harassment? Of course not, and neither are wolf-whistles; they’re merely lacking in sophistication and taste. Men are finding it harder and harder to know what women will take offense to and what they won’t.

“If you read some of the stories at http://hollaback-uk.blogspot.com/ you’ll find that often if a woman ignores a wolf whistle or a comment (allegedly a ‘compliment’) then the next step is abuse”.

Well, let’s be clear: we don’t have enough information to use the word ‘often’. That’s speculation. To know that, we’d need to know the total number of wolf-whistles. I doubt that even a single percent of them result in abuse (though of course even a single case is too many). That’s speculation too, and thus the problem with speculation.

“On one occasion I was slapped for not reacting to a man’s ‘compliments’.”

I can’t apologize on behalf of the male of the species, but I find myself wanting to. That’s a stunning thing to have had to endure. Most of us don’t even have that within us, by the way, lest anyone be tempted to descend into man-hating. It strikes me that that is what LASH exists to tackle, not a whistle.

“It’s not men like these right to pass comment on how women look when they’re walking down the street.”

Yes it is.

“I’m shocked you claim not to practice this (because deep down you know it’s wrong?) but still feel the need to defend it.”

You’re easily shocked. Does everything that is uncouth and undesirable automatically constitute harassment in your book? No nuance? Really? Nothing can be uncouth and not simultaneously harassment?

“It is unwanted sexual attention, we don’t want to know what you think about how we look…”

I haven’t sought to tell you. Oh, you’re talking about the men who wolf-whistle. Well, that’s called living in a free society… if it’s not harassment (and not all unwanted attention is) then you need to learn to live with it, if not love it (as many women do). I don’t want to walk down a street and hear people trying to sell me things or get me to give money to them, but it’s called living in a free society. It isn’t harassment, and it certainly shouldn’t be outlawed. If you want to live on an island where nobody ever looks at you the wrong way, go find it!

“There is nothing genuine about a wolf wistle or any of those kinds of ‘compliments’ they’re generic and have very little to do with the women and what they’re like as a person.”

Agreed.

“If it’s “just a compliment” then how come they don’t “compliment” me when I am walking along the street with my boyfriend?”

Because they don’t want to be beat up for expressing attraction toward someone else’s girlfriend. (That was easy.)

“Thirdly, “most” women do not find this complimentary.”

There’s that “most” again. Can you cite figures to support this? In my experience about as many women are flattered by the wolf-whistle as dislike it.

“Why anyone would go to so much trouble to insist that women find something complimentary when they are telling you that they are in fact insulted is beyond me.”

You’ve spectacularly missed my point. I said men feel that they’re giving a compliment. It may be a naughty compliment – they’re saying “Your body is attractive to me” – but a compliment nonetheless. Whether a woman receives it as complimentary or not is a separate question (some do, some don’t). So I’m not insisting what you say I’m insisting at all.

“If you genuinely want to flatter women, why don’t you listen to what they want instead of telling them what is and isn’t complementary?”

Did you miss the part where I said I don’t try to flatter women by whistling at them? Most of my friends are women, so I must be listening to what they want and complimenting them in the right ways enough that they remain friends with me!

@Sara.. I assume you missed my first line of the the post you are referring to… its says

“To add…. I know that women like to dress for “themselves” and I very much promote confidence in women…. that is the most attractive thing that I find with women…”

and again as per above comment your response on “stepping dangerously close to the ’she wore a short skirt, she was asking to be raped’ argument”, you generalise all males. Again mountain out of a mole hill! But then I assume your a supporter of LASH.

Can I ask what else is on your agenda. Try a campaign for pointless protests that cause so much inconvenience and disruption to peoples busy lives… I find protests harasses me.

Thats a very broad use of the above statement… to be realistic I’d love to see a man go to a court with the charge of “wolf whistling”… I can be 100% sure the judge wouldn’t even hear of it…

Sounds like a charge brought to someone in the 10th century….

So why campaign for something that is never going to the stop… I was on your website briefly this morning and I agree about what your doing with other fouled mouthed idiots shouting things like “NICE ARSE!”……….”WANNA F*CK?!”……….”SEXY BITCH!”……….”CHECK OUT THE TITS ON THAT!” etc, that is not nice and I agree with that totally… but the wolf whistle in comparison is very lame and therefore a null point if you say you want to stop “real” harassment leading to physical assault. If thats the case then sign me up, but arguing over petty things like the subject of this thread just tells me you’ve either gone to far… your anger has made you lose focus, or you just want to stir things up.

John, I wouldn’t be true to the UN’s definition of harassment if I didn’t include wolf whistlng – it’s a form of “non-verbal conduct based on sex” and if women find it offensive, it’s harassment.

My campaign aims to make street harassment, including wolf whistling, socially unacceptable rather than illegal. From your comments, I deduce that you don’t think wolf whistling is particularly socially acceptable either, which is why you don’t do it (?).

I’m sorry to hear that wolf whistling is such a sticking point that you’d rather spend your time publicizing your belief that it’s not harassment rather than helping with the overall issue.

I guess if your main objective is to be “true to the UN’s definition of harassment,” you’re doing the right thing. I prefer to think about issues on their merits and demerits for myself, and on this one it appears I disagree with the UN, that’s all. There are definitely verbal forms of abuse; I think classifying the wolf-whistle as one of them is fraught with difficulty.

You say your campaign aims to make street harassment like wolf-whistling socially unacceptable rather than illegal. I would have thought you would want to make legitimate harassment of all kinds illegal… including intimidation and inappropriate touching and some of the other horrendous things described on your site. And that’s the problem; including whistling strains the credibility of the claim that there’s a real problem for a lot of hearers (myself included). I’m thoughtful enough to understand the difference and join you in opposing serious harassment, but the message may be just lost completely on others.

“I’m sorry to hear that wolf whistling is such a sticking point that you’d rather spend your time publicizing your belief that it’s not harassment rather than helping with the overall issue.”

Well it’s just about telling the truth whether it’s welcomed or not… don’t you think that’s important? The truth is I don’t think men are doing anything ‘wrong’ per se by wolf-whistling at a woman they find attractive; it’s simply a form of flirtation. I think it’s a worthwhile use of my time to point out some logical fallacies when I’m asked about them… first, that not all women agree with you and some welcome the wolf-whistle (my wife and others I’ve talked to included), second, that it does not constitute harassment, third, that this actually tends to trivialize real harassment and the extent to which it is a real problem, fourth, that men are sometimes completely confused by what women find acceptable, and that calling their misguided efforts harassment isn’t likely to help!

Nevertheless I commend you for taking on the problem with harassment, and although I sense we’ll disagree on a lot, I assure you I’m a perfectly nice guy and wish you well with the campaign.

I think picking up on wolf-whistling as an example misrepresents the LASH campaign a little. Personally, I rarely experience wolf-whistling; when I do, it annoys me. However, what I do experience is obscene comments, men stepping into my path to obstruct my way, coming too close to me in an attempt to intimidate me, and making obscene gestures. Wolf-whistling has been picked up by LASH as a ‘minor’ example of the various forms of harassment women experience merely for being women in public. For the record, it doesn’t matter what we are wearing at the time either.

That said, I can understand why men like yourself think this is women being a bit silly; after all, you don’t have your daily lives in public affected by others’ attitudes towards you. Perhaps if, whilst going to work and doing whatever you have to as part of your daily business, you got verbally or physically ‘complimented’ by a stranger for the fifth time that day, you might think differently. Some women may enjoy unwanted sexual attention. The majority of us do not.

@John Wright: are you really comparing sexually threatening behaviour with marketers with clipboards? Now that you’ve reminded me we live in a free society, I’ll make sure I point that out next time I feel like shouting racial abuse at strangers in the streets or bawling ‘You fat b******’ out of my car window. The point is that for women on the receiving end of this harassment, it DOESN’T feel like a ‘free’ society!

Hello

Just want an educated point regarding wolf whistling as a very inherent part of our culture, which is so deep now that socially I think it will be very hard to irradiate..

References to whistling at pretty women date back to the writings of Roman comic playwright Plautus. In his Mercator, written around 200 B.C., Plautus refers to a young woman by saying “when she passes through the streets all the men would look at her, leer, nod and wink and whistle.”

also see..

http://academic.sun.ac.za/akroterion/Akro45/vanstekln.pdf

Especially referring to page 71 onwards…which is a research article in a Social Science journal regarding this very subject!!

“are you really comparing sexually threatening behaviour with marketers with clipboards?”

No, I’m challenging the notion that wolf-whistling constitutes “sexually threatening behavior.”

“I think it’s clear that street harassment isn’t always something a woman can just ignore.”

Agree completely Jen. I hope this campaign shed some light on it.

“the reason for the seriousness of it is that it “turns a woman into a sexual lust object ‘en plein public’.”

I’m a sex object on occasion too; we all are. To be turned into a sex object is just a way of saying that for that man in that place looking at that woman, he’s interested in her sexually. To return to the earlier analogy of people on the street with clipboards, they’re ‘turning me into’ a money tap. For salespeople, I’m only a prospect (they’re not interested in ‘getting to know me’). Is sales evil? For people with a message to get out, I’m turned into a delivery method as a radio presenter.

If t’s true that men are ‘turning’ the women they whistle at into sex objects in those moments, then it’s equally true that we all turn each other into whatever we need each other to be in the encounters we have. I don’t necessarily feel that there’s much wrong with that.

When Hugh Hefner caused controversy by saying in a recent interview that women are sex objects, I knew exactly what he meant. He went on to say, “If women weren’t sex objects, there wouldn’t be another generation.” He’s saying that we all become sex objects (per se) at different times, and he’s right.

To imagine that a man whistling at a woman because he finds her sexy is ‘reducing her to a sex object’ any more than a woman chatting up a guy at a bar is reducing him to the same thing is one of the great confusions of the post-feminist era. Perhaps if he had listened to her speak first, he would be attracted to her personality; as it happens, he saw her walk by. Why are either of those aspects of a woman more or less worthy of notice than the other?

I don’t have the time to essay-reply, and the points I made above are not based on semantics as you allege. I haven’t misrepresented any opinion above as far as I’m aware (and I’ll be happy to look again if you tell me otherwise). I may only quote from a small portion of what you say but I think it represents your main point well, and I’ve found it’s the best way to refer to what you’ve said.

———–

“You can very well argue that is natural for us to make sex objects of each other at certain times (although there IS a fundamental difference between a man doing that to a woman, and the other-way-round).”

There is??? Why so? This is becoming hugely interesting.

“And before you start saying that we experience invasions of privacy in public all the time, there is also very obviously a much more serious regard to privacy when you are talking about sexual matters.”

Is a flirtatious sentiment like the wolf-whistle a ‘sexual matter’? Maybe you’re just way more uptight than I, but I can’t imagine that a wolf-whistle qualifies by most reasonable definitions as dealing with a ‘sexual matter’ in public.

[Forgive my paraphrase...] “It is far more acceptable for a man to approach a woman in a bar … [because they're] established [places]…”

I see your point, and it’s prima facie sensible until you apply this to the more messy facts of real life. The data says most people meet their partners in work or within another non-’social’ arrangement; not a designated place for dealing with ‘sexual matters’. You may argue that people are getting to know each other at work on a nonsexual basis, and I would agree with you. My point is not that wolf-whistling is a great way to pick up chicks; my point is that it isn’t harassment (it’s simply lacking in grace or class).

In this clean, well-sanitized world of yours, there’s no room for the kind of spontaneous, flirtatious encounter depicted in much romance literature because these encounters are taking place in non-approved places for dealing with ‘sexual matters’; woe to the man who sees a woman he can’t live without and the grand romantic gesture he’d feel like making! We may thus object to the wolf-whistle on the basis that it is lacking in etiquette (like holding a fork the wrong way at the dinner table); it’s unreasonable to object to it on the basis that it somehow constitutes harassment of the order that it must share a place on a list with sexual assault.

“a conversation allows trust to be established. One can start to make judgments about someones trustworthiness through how they conduct themselves in conversation.”

I entirely agree. But life is messy and we can’t expect that everyone is going to be so courteous. One must therefore learn to accept that (1) the majority of men do not mean harm by it, (2) it’s a misguided way of getting a beautiful woman’s attention and can be flattering on a level, (3) it often stems from a lack of confidence and should be seen in that light.

Here’s an analogy: I’ve been copied before in some of my creative endeavours. It took me a while to figure out that the old saying – imitation is the sincerest form of flattery – is true. I no longer seek to change it; it’s a fact of life (like people with clipboards on streets and men who don’t know how to talk to women).

We can’t change everything that makes us angry initially, so an understanding of its causes and the lack of harm it’s really doing is a very healthy way to proceed.

“You’re focussing on the semantics of the phrase ’sexual matter’! By doing so, you’re indirectly, but deliberately, trivialising the actual point i’ve made. I use the phrase ’sexual matter’ to mean thus: Wolf-whistling, compared to being target with a clipboard, say, is about ’sexual’ desire – the lust of a man for a woman with an attractive body.”

Ben, I think you’re missing my point, which isn’t about semantics as you allege. I understood exactly what you meant by ‘sexual matter’; what you’re doing is separating sexual matters out of the ordinary course of human interaction by saying that a bar is an ‘accepted’ (by whom?) place for that, and the street not. I think flirting can happen anywhere and it would be odd to expect differently! So by objecting to ‘sexual matter’, I’m objecting to your syphoning off of sexual interactions as something which should only be permitted in special places.

“You seem to be arguing that logic, or reason, do not provide suitable arguments for avoiding this practice, so I assume that your decision not to do it yourself is at least partly instinctive.”

I said it before, it’s not about instinct or logic, it’s about etiquette. Is it logical to insist that a door is held open for a woman, or that forks be held in the left hand and knives in the right, or that a card be given on a birthday? No, those things are culturally rooted; they’re based on the mores of the culture that surrounds them. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of wolf-whistling is the same; I don’t do it, not because there are philosophical reasons for abstaining from it, but because it’s generally not how I want to come across.

The more interesting question is this: how many men, outside of any cultural restriction, would express sexual desire if it weren’t culturally taboo to do so? In other words, what would the world look like if people were traditionally free to say out loud whatever they’re thinking? And by having such a cultural impingement on freedom of expression, does it prevent anyone thinking about anyone else as sexually interesting?

I believe the British prudery in this respect is based on some Christian-based mores, and that in turn is probably due to the influence of St. Augustine, who got rid of his wife and concubine to live in celibacy because it was distracting from his mission for Christ. Anyway, I digress; the point is this isn’t about instinct on my part as you suggest; it’s about the desire to be part of a society and to fit with what they see as ‘normal.’

“A wolf-whistle is simply NOT a compliment. A compliment is intended to make the recipient feel good. A wolf-whistle is designed to get a reaction from the recipient.”

Yes, I think some men are just desperate for the attention of attractive women, and any reaction is better than none. But whether it’s a compliment or not is not dependent on the reaction; I think a lot of men will feel that if she takes his compliment badly, it’s her fault for being so uptight and repressed. I disagree with them; I think the likely reaction of the hearer should have some bearing on whether or not to ‘speak’, but my only point here is to reassert that men feel they’re complimenting the woman in a flirtatious way, and that it isn’t any different to them than making any other form of interested expression.

“[Arguments defending 'Paki', 'Great tits' etc.] may appear on the surface to be logical, but they are obviously absurd, because they do not take into account the fact that words (as well as behaviours) take on meanings beyond what might be their basic definition. And that the intention behind them does not necessarily translate into their received meaning.”

You’re absolutely right, and I haven’t argued otherwise. What you’re saying is that the ‘speaker’ must take into account what sentiment the ‘hearer’ will recieve, and I agree (see culture, etiquette, above). I think you’ve picked some good examples, but they aren’t directly analogous to wolf-whistling, and here’s why. “Nice tits” is a compliment the vast majority of men understand will be offensive to the vast majority of women. “Paki” is a description the vast majority of people understand will offend the vast majority of Pakistani people.

A wolf-whistle is received with offence a FAR smaller percentage of the time in my experience (in an informal poll among female friends, family and work colleagues, a tiny minority said it would offend them). Men know this, and thus it remains more likely that women will be complimented or at least just mildly embarrassed at the attention, rather than offended (which, contrary to the claims I’ve heard, is NOT what men are largely seeking to do). Again, this is about cultural norms, not about hard morality, which is why…

“As a man, one learns that wolf-whistling, along with unwanted sexual attention and comments on physical appearance from strangers, is offensive to women…”

…is just inaccurate; it would be more accurate to say that some women are offended by it. A man who does it is guilty of simply failing to take into account social appropriateness, and it’s a little gamble every time (a bigger one in an age where everyone seemingly gets offended at everything, and almost nothing can be said without an über-sensitivity about every subject).

Women who get offended at an expression of sexual interest are reading into it several millennia of patriarchy. That may be understandable, but it isn’t very logical. Perhaps the man is simply imparting his appreciation of her beauty? My view is that people should stop being so sensitive and reading politically correct bullshit into everything. Life’s too short to be so uptight.

“So I learn from the experiences of these people, rather than arguing with them and attempting to invalidate their opinions.”

Without logical discourse about these things we’ll never progress beyond being offended about everything. Is the best we can do as a society really to make lots of sounds taboo? Or can we move BEYOND reading millennia of hurt into the sounds we make with our mouths, in an understanding that we can just be sexually interested in each other without descending into patriarchy?

offfff!!! typos.. need more coffee…

@John…. I think you have summarised it will when you said

“My point is not that wolf-whistling is a great way to pick up chicks; my point is that it isn’t harassment (it’s simply lacking in grace or class).”

Good way to close a mute argument…. Wolf Whistling isn’t harassment its… “simply lacking in grace and class”

As I said…. this country (UK) and indeed the rest of the world has many more pressing “harassments” to campaign about.

I enjoy dressing nicely, as I like clothes and take pride in my appearance. (although never dressing particularly provocatively)

It is nothing but blind intolerable arrogance for men, that have no relation to me (any woman)at all to think that when I got up and dressed that morning it was to please them. IT WASN’T!

By wearing a skirt, heels, make-up.. I am not inviting strangers to comment, holla, whistle (like I was an animal) shout.. or worse.

I accept that a wolf whistle no matter how offensive I find it.. might be the tip of the ice berg.. but as a woman who has lived in London for 8 years.. let me tell you that it rarely stops at a whistle…

By fighting back against the culture of whistling you draw a distinct line of what is not acceptable which protects vulnerable women from anything worst that might happen later.

I have been pushed, shouted at, sworn at, spat at, FLASHED and followed home late at night ON MANY OCCASIONS. I have run down the street after being pursued by fairly ‘respectable’ looking men.. who after I took your advice and ignored their ‘COMPLIMENT’ thought it might be fun to scare me witless by chasing me.

I am sure that because it has creeped into being such an accepted part of our culture.. many men may WRONGLY think that it is a way of telling a woman they find them attractive.. but it has to stop!!! Even if some women like it.. MANY DON’T.

It reminds me of the classic situation you see with young children who have been given a pet for the first time..

The children are so excited by their new soft friend, that they squeeze it and stroke it too hard.. resulting in the animal being injured if not permenantly damaged.. (my own sister had a very unfortunate incident with a guinea pig)

They think they are just being kind..but they have no concept of what the pet wants/feels.

I am reluctant to believe that all the whilsting men are this innocent that they don’t see the consequences of their actions…

BUT if you men really do TRULY believe that this form of interaction is complimentary you need to learn FAST like the kid holding the guinea pig that this is NOT THE WAY!!

If you really love whilsting all that much..and find the thought of stopping impossible.. why not use your freedom of speech on this page..to set up a musical group?

John, if you don’t mind me saying, that last comment was fairly weak. I can understand why you might want to use flippancy as a smokescreen while you back out of the room on this one…

But if you’re at the point where you feel the best way to protect your argument is to attempt to isolate it from the context of sexism and street harassment and plead ignorance on the wider issues women have to deal with every day, maybe it wasn’t an argument worth making in first place?

We learn, we learn, eh?

This John Wright guy is a patronising, privileged, pedantic douche. I am so fed up of Men telling women that they are hypersensitive, and that sexism, and threatening behaviour towards women from men, is a ‘compliment’.

Not to mention he seems to have little concept of a little something called context. There is a massive difference between a man objectifying a woman to vice versa- men weren’t, as a group, objectified by society (i.e. dowrys etc) for many hundreds of years.

John, I would say that responding to a lengthy post from someone talking about how the wolf-whistle and street harassment have negatively impacted on their life with a comment that begins with the word ‘hilarious’ is at best flippant and worst wildly insensitive. Although you’d probably disagree.

Your assertions that ‘London men’ are ‘creepier’ and that this has caused some women to be oversensitive to wolf-whistling are probably more laughably absurd than they are flippant. So that I’ll grant you.

But let’s be serious. The simple issue that you’re trying very hard to ignore is that the wolf-whistle is linked to an unhealthy attitude toward women that in turn feeds into an entire culture of sexism. It’s disrespectful, often intimidating, and almost always uninvited and unwelcome. In a world in which the harassment you’ve read about in this thread regularly occurs, try to imagine what a wolf whistle probably feels like for most women. Now try to imagine why on earth you consider it worth defending.

Anyway, you could probably continue to ignore the connections to the wider context, burrow your head into semantic discussions and believe that wolf-whistling isn’t harassment quite contently for the rest of your life. But given that you’ll probably never be on the receiving end of this sort of attention, you’ll have to forgive me if I ask -who exactly is supposed to care what you think about it?

What does it matter if you or I (men) consider the wolf-whistle harassment? It’s simply not our right to decide that for women. Stamp out the wolf whistle as acceptable behavior or revive it’s image as a bit of cheeky fun? I know which one I would prefer, John. Perhaps you’d like to think again about which you think would be more beneficial, too.

“JohnIsADouche on September 10, 2010 | Permalink”

Seems people who cant have a constructive arguments resort to abuse and offensiveness.

Another angry lady perhaps or a guy called JohnIsADouche… your parents most have been whacked man hahahahaha.

The majority of women I know DO find it irratating. I don’t have accurate worldwide figures but the point is, attitudes need to be revised because SOME women are offended/irritated by it.

And when I say I’m offended, I’m told to ‘learn to love it’ because it’s a completely accepted and ‘normalised’ part of our culture.

If something annoyed/made you uncomfortable on a regular basis, you’d probably want to speak up against it as well, right? And have your complaint taken seriously?

Again, it’s only a tiny symptom of a huge problem but I think you could try seeing the bigger picture from a woman’s perspective.

It’s not the same. A street seller is not sizing you up on your sexual appeal, something that the average young women feels extremely sensitive about.

I know it’s a positive reaction (in the whistler’s eyes), but in my experience, and the experience of friend’s, it can quickly be followed by a crude sexual comment or even a hurtful negative one (especially if you DARE respond). Forgive me if I’m not feeling ‘flirtatious’ (try intimidated, pissed off).

I know the point you’re making is specifically about wolf-whistling BUT such an incident is not always isolated and I’ve come to EXPECT further crude or sometimes negative comments. So even if those crude/negative comments don’t come, I’ve tensed up in anticipation of them and, depending on whether it’s night/day/where I am/if I’m alone, my response can range from mild annoyance to nervous and intimidated.

I’m not trying to ‘stifle’ flirtatious exchanges between strangers (how about a SMILE?!), but how ‘flirtatious’ do you think I find a one way judgement that (at best) I feel too awkward to respond to and at worst, creep the shit out of me?

Your argument is extremely simple to understand and through these comments you’ve been presented with a myriad of reasons why women want this kind of behaviour recognised as harassment, yet you’re still clinging to your initial point that it isn’t considered ‘harassment’. It should be.

LASH is trying to spread awareness and empower women to speak up, as, whether or not you think it’s reasonable, many of us find this behaviour intimidating.

Not only that, but in so making it clear to men that, as it is intimidating behaviour, in the UK it could also be against the law. It would certainly fall within the legal definition of harassment (not to mention falling under the scope of the definitions provided by dictionaries of repute)

Definition of harassment according to the UK’s Public Order Act of 1986:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.”

Definition of “harass” according to Merriam-Webster:
“(1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct”

Definition according to Oxford English Dictionary:
“v. [tr.] subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation”

It’s defined in the US much the same way.

According to US Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)(definition provided for the purpose of protecting witnesses):
“(1) the term “harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that—
(A) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
(B) serves no legitimate purpose; and
(2) the term “course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.”

And here in the Model Penal Code Section 250.4 (defining the crime):
““A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to harass another, he:“(1) makes a telephone call without purpose of legitimate communication;  or“(2) insults, taunts, or challenges another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response;  or“(3) makes repeated communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language;  or“(4) subjects another to an offensive touching;  or“(5) engages in any other course of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor.””

So…yeah. You’re still wrong.

Just happened across this…. “I think it is wonderful that your wife has not had any horrible experiences with sexual harassment or sexism which have altered her view of the ‘harmless wolf-whistle’ but for those many thousands of women who have experienced sexual violence and sexual harassment I find both yours and your wifes nonchalent attitude towards something so basically sexist is insensitive and ignorant.”

Hi. I never said I’ve haven’t had an experience of sexual harassment. I just said that I didn’t think the wolf whistle alone constitutes harassment. Trust me, I realize what real sexual harassment is. It’s belittling, demoralizing and in some cases just plain horrifying. But the wolf-whistle in my opinion doesn’t qualify.

The broken nose one man received by my knee wasn’t even near what he really deserved. The pain and torment he caused me by the episode doesn’t even compare with what he had to endure afterwards. A wolf-whistle just isn’t even in that category! I’m still able to take from the whistle which I think most men intend it to be. Do I think it’s possibly a bit classless and sometimes irritating, definitely. Threatening? If you think that’s threatening then maybe you haven’t really experienced sexual harassment.

Also, the wolf whistle needs to be put into context. A man making rude gestures whistles at me. Was it the gestures or the whistling? Gestures. After whistling there is a spew of rude comments. It’s again, not the whistling but the comments. I can separate these out because in my experience, the whistle is often just that… a whistle, they’re saying I’m hot, that’s all! Nearly every instance that I have been whistled at it’s followed by a smile, wink or sometimes you can’t even identify the particular person the whistle came from.

This isn’t just me by the way… John has been asking a lot of our friends lately and similar responses. Women focusing on the injustice of the wolf whistle belittles the actual problem of harassment.

(John is the least sexist man I know, by the way. )

“This has been my main point since the beginning of this discussion! The wolf-whistle itself is not harassment; it would need to be more than a whistle to constitute harassment. That’s exactly what Melissa said too; “just a whistle? It’s fine.””

My point is, if there are women campaigning to spread awareness that it isn’t fine for a large enough minority, possibly even a majority (?) (I’ve been unable to find any stats on this as yet, I guess no one has thought to do a comprehensive study focusing on it…that is free for me to access), then the fact that it may be intimidating is known and doing so could be illegal.

My opinion, Melissa’s opinion, your opinion, doesn’t matter – it’s the collective that provides the definition. Maybe instead of going around proclaiming that it isn’t harassment, you should be asking why it is (or isn’t).

John, I’ve just happened across this through friends of mine who have commented on it.

Clearly it is impossible to debate with you as you have literally no interest in any other opinion than your own. It is clear also that we live in a world with some unfortunate elements of sexism that are about as easy to remove as red wine vomit from a cream white carpet.

How lucky then, that the amount of people that pay any heed to what you say/think can be counted on one (perhaps two, let’s give you that) hands.

‘John is the least sexist man I know, by the way’

John’s an idiot, Melissa.

I clearly know enough to judge those which are appropriate and which are demeaning, John.

10/10 for cringe on that last one, John. You’re a regular James Bond. [I guess I need to reinstate my allegation of insults, Peter!... lol. I guess women must be lying to you. -John]

“John’s an idiot, Melissa.”

In my experience Alex, a person who can’t make their point resort to snide, insulting remarks.

Wolf-whistling is a non-verbal form of communication.

Non-verbal communication can be inaccurate.

There may be a disparity between intended meaning and perceived meaning when a wolf-whistle occurs.

The perceived meaning is more important, as the target of the wolf whistle is the only person who can, potentially, be offended by it.

No one has the right to tell anyone that what they are feeling in response to something that they have experienced is inaccurate.

It is up to women to say whether they find wolf-whistling offensive. Men have no right whatsoever to comment on whether it is offensive or not.

I have been repeatedly stunned by the stupidity of male commenters on this thread, who say they don’t wolf whistle and then struggle to defend it.

John

Some of the comments that have appeared on this thread have been very amusing and I think it is great that so many people have engaged on a subject that I personally am very committed too (sexism- not the wolf-whistle).
As Christina has so excellently pointed out.. The law currently DOES protect people from acts which are proven to be intimidating under the title of HARASSMENT… and as so many comments from women on this thread have pointed out.. there are a lot of women find it intimidating.. and they should be protected by law in this instance.
However let’s point out that this began with John’s comment against LASH a campaign which stands to protect women from all forms of street harassment and only one part of this harassment is wolf whistling. Which we all must agree is a great campaign!
A wolf-whistle is a pretty banal act.. it’s a pretty brainless and useless form of interaction.. It in no way states politely that a woman is physically attractive.. its just a noise. Those arguing that it is integral in the flirtation and mating rituals of human adults would have a hard time finding any women who found that this gesture alone prompted them to have intercourse or a relationship.. just as women trying to prove an harassment case would have difficulty proving that one whilst constituted as harassment (although it should be discouraged and unacceptable).
In both instances it is the context which it is given and the resounding context is a sexist one.
I find it amusing to hear John argue about ‘elements of sexism’ as if there are just a few isolated cases left in society. Our society is hugely sexist. Sexism and inequality saturates every aspect of everyday life, and even these ‘friends’ who we discuss as wolf-whistling in a harmless way at home or at a party are still either playing on the sexist rhetoric or playing up to a controversial ideal which they know may prompt a reaction (albeit playful). We are all aware of the sexist world we live in, and the people on this thread arguing against the wolf-whistle would like to fight for a society where the wolf-whistle becomes a thing of the past, only to be joked about when all other elements of sexism are a distant memory.
John’s argument “Women who get offended at an expression of sexual interest are reading into it several millennia of patriarchy.” is very weak. Are women supposed to forget the context of our existence up till now? Do you think a similar questioning of the grudges held against racial discrimination and oppression would hold up as well?
Your argument about street sellers is absolute nonsense and has nothing to do with the argument on here at all.
The gesture of wolf-whistle has EVERYTHING to do with it’s context.. to remove it from that is impossible…

If you think that it is merely a free expression of ‘sexual interest’ or a joke amongst friends… Do you think making a off-hand racist remark towards a person of an ethnicity that you are aware has suffered great oppression and inequality would be acceptable and that the person should just find it annoying..?
EVEN this argument does not do the point justice though… because although racist jokes are horrific and certain gestures and words in our society have become unacceptable and taboo, they do not carry the same link to sexual violence and abuse that sexism does (unless sexist as well as racist).
The context that a wolf-whistle is given as John admits is to show sexual interest….it’s pretty base level John isn’t it? like a dogs sniffing each others bits? It is hardly sophisticated or RESPECTFUL interaction..(please note respectful!). Which is why I am assuming that you claim not to use it yourself…? So why can’t all men be as sophisticated as you John? and find more mentally stimulating, and respectful ways to initiate contact with the opposite sex?
However your statement that ALL women are grateful and happy to receive validation from unknown men is the most blatantly sexist comment I’ve heard from a long time!
Do you really think that all women really care what strangers think of their appearance enough to be grateful for a wolf-whistle? Do you think that we are all that vain, shallow and desperate?
I am an attractive woman John.. and let me tell you I do not need the validation from every short/fat/bald/ageing/teenage/spotty/greasy/handsome/rich/poor/weedy/DESPERATE STRANGER I encounter..
I accept that MANY women have been socially conditioned to believe that this is all they are worth.. and surely you can see that this is a sad state of affairs and this is what all the feminists want to counteract. They want women to STOP thinking that idiotic people’s opinions matter, people like you John! People who think its important that women find validation from their looks instead of their achievements.. like you say. You admitted earlier that you believed women are judged on appearance and men on achievements..THIS IS THE CONTEXT JOHN!! THIS IS THE SEXIST UNEQUAL CONTEXT!! WHY THE HELL SHOULD I BE JUDGED ON HOW I LOOK WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED ON WHAT YOU ACHEIVED?
This John is the context that everyone on this blog has been arguing with you about for 2 weeks. The context that turns a banal sound of a wolf-whistle and your wife’s voice .. into sexist nonsense .. and It has to stop.
Even though I am sure your opinion wont change and you probably high5 your wife every time some meathead indicates he’d live to give her one (as it surely validates you too if it validates her).. I would highly recommend that you read some current feminist literature such as Natasha Walter ‘Living Dolls’ or Ariel Level ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ to highlight to you that the ‘element’ of sexism you think still exists in London.. exists everywhere.. Maybe don’t give it to your wife though.. as you might not want her to wake up and realise how innately sexist and backwards you are!

Who are you james? when did you meet me?

I have no idea who you are.. or what you are talking about im afraid. I definately did not do a ‘little wiggle’ sorry.

what’s your name? where did I meet you exactly? I feel like you are definately winding me up!?

Sorry to butt in, I’ve just skimmed the comments and if this doesn’t seem to rude, it’s a pretty standard argument of this type.

The key to understanding this problem is to understand the motivations of gender feminism, which developed this particular narrative of harrassment. A good statement of the feminist position can be found in Catharine Mackinnon’s Towards A Feminist Theory Of State. I’ve just read it, as it goes, which was about as much fun as dentistry sans anaesthetic.

The public discourse on sexual harrassment is of course a kind of Mackinnonism stripped of attribution. Mackinnon herself defined and popularised sexual harrassment, having initially developed it as a consequence of pseudo-marxist “consciousness raising”. To understand it, you have to understand Mackinnon and Mackinnonism.

Mackinnonist/gender feminism is a manifestation of an intense puritan erotophobia. It is the direct inheritor of the Victorian feminist movement of the likes of Jane Addams (then, later, Margaret Sanger), which was characterised by a furiously puritanical anti-sexuality; the sexual basis of it was the perception of sex as a thing men do to women, and to promote sexual abstinence, including (indeed especially) within marriage. This tied in with the original Victorian “progressives’” erotophobia: attempting to stamp out prostitution, obsecenity, pornography, “sexualisation” and indeed any sex at all. The ideal woman in Addams’ et al’s view is one who has no sex whatsoever; this is a direct inheritance of certain Christian erotophobic trends which are well known. The American proto-Progressive movement grew out of intense Yankee religious fervour. Hence, also, concentration on Temperance.

So, then there was this liberal backlash in teh twentieth century, and marxism, and then Victorian-style feminism re-emerged in “left wing” and apparently radical clothing (dungarees primarily) with the likes of Dworkin and Mackinnon. And it was Mackinonn that gave it, essentially, an acceptably left-wing (pseudo-marxist) academic fundament.

(Mackinnon herself, predictably, came from an old-fashioned Yankee puritan family (her father was a Republican politician) and one can imagine this puritan young miss, arriving at college at the height of the sexual revolution and reacting with utter horror at all the liberalism around her, retreating into politics and seeking a suitably “radical” justification of her puritan impulses).

Mackinnon’s answer was to use a marxist interpretation (though it is little better than a metaphor) in which bourgeois exproporation of surplus value becomes male expropriation of female sexual value. She reinterprets all of the gender divide; on any issue whatsoever (such as wages, for example) as sexual exploitation and sexually derived. So if a man doesn’t promote a woman employee, it is because at the fundamental level he desires to exploit her sexually. There is in Mackinnon’s world no other level of interaction between men and women. It isn’t so much that all sex is rape as everything is rape according to her.

That’s why we talk not of “gender harrassment” or of “sex harrassment” but of sexual harrassment. Thus, because in the Marxian metaphor, labour value is replaced by sexual value, and under Marx the worker should own all his labour and not “share” it with the capitalist, under Mackinnon the woman owns all the sex and if she “shares” it with a man it is being expropriated; literally stolen. As a profoundly disturbed erotophobe, she cannot comprehend that sex isn’t a zero-sum game.

So, sexual advances of any kind in the workplace are theft of sex, or a threat of theft at least, and that extends to the world at large. It is not possible under Mackinonnism for a woman to experience a sexual advance without it being threatening; because if she is forced/tricked/coerced into sex (she cannot consent, because that is as unthinkable as anyone willingly consenting to theft) she is inherently experiencing expropriation. A sexual advance, however minor and however casual, such as a wolf-whistle, is thus always a threat.

Outside the Mackinnonist theory, which is fundemantally wrong (I hope it’s clear why from my explanation above (it is based on false axioms)) this is clearly bullshit. But unfortuantely it has been widely adopted by the feminist movement and thus seeped into the general worldview of many women, who have absorbed and themselves developed some level of the neurotic Mackinnon’s erotophobia.

Either you believe that theory or you don’t. If you don’t, a wolf whistle is no more harmful than any other social communication. If you do, it’s a threat of rape. There’s no middle ground, and believers versus non-believers can’t reach a compromise position on this, because nobody would find a compromise on rape acceptable. Either it’s right or wrong, you can’t say “a bit of rape is nothing to worry about”, that’s silly.

The key thing in these arguments is we need to go back to the theory on which they are based to understand them. You can’t discuss sexual harrassment without discussing the underyling theory. You can’t reach a judgment based on what you think sexual harrassment might be; you have to work with what Mackinnon, its inventor, declares it to be.

Sorry for the long post, got a bit carried away thar.

John, the answer to your question is no, as far as I am aware.

I’m not drunk, insane, a woman, a eunuch, a LASH campaigner or some sort of hired feminist stooge.

I’m a heterosexual man like you, with female friends and a long-term partner who is calling you out on how ill-thought through I believe your defense of wolf-whistling is. It really is that simple.

Let’s keep it simple: You and I don’t whistle at people on the street because we know it’s wrong, John. We both know it’s disrespectful and could ruin someone’s day. Many women are intimidated and upset by it. We also don’t feel comfortable calling for the attention of a complete stranger whom we know nothing about in order to make comment on how we view them sexually. It’s a form of harassment and I’m astonished that you’re not tired of pointlessly defending it.

Matt, I’ve never been whistled at in the street. Have you?

I think you’d really struggle to honestly portray the problem of women harassing men on the street as comparable to men harassing women, really. I’ve certainly never been intimated in public by anything like what’s being mentioned here and none of the men I know have similar stories regarding this to virtually all of the women I know.

Not really, Ian. It’s wrong because of the easily identifiable direct negative effects that it has on people.

Well, the only “direct negative effects” I can think of is the perception of harrassment, which as I’ve typed at some length above, is something that women have been told to believe by the sexual harrassment narrative.

So it’s circular again.

If you’d been taught that black people are offensive, you could justify whites-only areas by saying “many people are offended and upset by the presence of black people”. But that wouldn’t justify it at a deeper level, we’d just be circularly syaing “people are upset because they’re upset”.

What’s interesting, surely, is why women have been taught to be upset.

Peter: I have been whistled at, had sexual comments yelled at me from across the street and been randomly felt up as I’ve walked through town on my way home. The sad thing about this is that the general assumption is that because I’m a man (and therefore only interested in sex) I should be happy about it.

There are as many dangerous and sexist assumptions about men in our society as there are about women. Men have the advantages of historical social dominance and physicality which I concede tends to make them appear more threatening. As a very tall man I would most certainly be laughed at for airing concerns that I had been made to feel uncomfortable. But if we are looking for an equal society, then we cannot punish one group’s transgressions and ignore the other’s.

So in short. Yep.

Ian… after your very long tirade I tried my hardest to rise above it.. but you persist..so I must comment.. I am getting a little bored of this discourse now and so I will be brief.

Whilst I am glad that you have read Mackinnon’s work and that you found it interesting enough to show us all your new found knowledge of her writing.. please note time of her writing..and the context which it came from..

The thing many of you arguing PRO-WW (wolf whistle) seem to forget is our little friend CONTEXT!

Mackinnon wrote a very significant theory which impacted the then feminists and tried to highlight (in perhaps radical wording) that a woman’s body is her own property and worth defnding her sexuality.. now celebacy might seem out of the box (excuse the pun) to us now.. but at the time it came when men couldnt even be tried for the rape of their wives…women’s bodies were male property.

Feminism in the 70′s & 80′s moved away from this discourse because they wanted acknowledgment of women’s sexual desires on own terms. Which is great. Women should enjoy sex (with whomever they like).

The trouble.. occured after this time.. when during a sexual liberation where women felt in control of their sexuality.. it was sold back to them and manipulated.. and instead of being sexually liberated they became sexual objects.. The mainstreaming of the sex industry..pornography, lad’s mags, sexy bikinis for kids, stripper chic.. have turned a sexual revolution on its head and have played women off eachother.. right back into a world of constructs created to a male ideal.

I am sure you are inteligent enough to see that by not wanting uninvited attention on the street from a stranger it does not imply that a woman would not enjoy her body or sex on a level which she finds comfortable, with a man/woman who respects her as an individual and appreciates her physical form for more than an male fantasty ideal which women are constantly pressured to live up to in our society?

By objecting to a wolf-whistle does not mean you need to get the dungarees out as you seem to think.. To think that it constitutes as threatening does not mean that you have to be threatened by all sexual interacting.

It is possible to create a new discourse and theory for a progressive society, extracting elements from various theorists/thinkers/experiences without having to conform to one feminist ideal (Mackinnon. Why can we not believe in a new standard Ian?

To use an example of ‘taking a hat off’ being rude and social standard changing constantly… I think if you read the 2 weeks of comments above you would see that the main issue is the ever steadfast sexist attitude.. and to say that wolf-whistles used to be acceptable with no idea how it is to be a woman or any evidence seems naive?

It is rational to believe from many women’s experiences of wolf-whistling being unpleasant and intimidating, that a rational argument for the end of WW would be that it is offensive and sexist?

I find peoples inability to contexualise these ideas remarkable.

I am interested to hear your views of what you think an acceptable society would be like Ian? Do you think that if a woman enjoys sex.. she should accept every single negative remark,gesture and sexist attitude surrounding it? and if she is not willing to accept it she must take a vow of celebacy?

Perhaps its time to read some more up to date feminist literature hey? and get with the program?

Oh good grief Ben, I didn’t claim Mackinonn’s book launched the term. She spent years writing the book after having already launched the Sexual Harrasment narrative.

Since we’re quoting Wikipedia, from the Mackinnon article I quote-

MacKinnon first became interested in issues concerning sexual harassment when she heard that an administrative assistant at Cornell University resigned after being refused a transfer when she complained of her supervisor’s harassing behavior, and who was denied unemployment benefits because she quit for ‘personal’ reasons. It was at a consciousness-raising session about this and other women’s workplace experiences that the term sexual harassment was first coined.

The term first spread, of course, by word of mouth.

Jo, I’ve just re-read TAFTOS because I’m researching for a possible book. I’ve read a lot of feminist work in general. As it goes, I just find Mackinnon’s writing execrable compared to Dworkin who, whatever I think of her ideas, was a damned good writer. Reading anything by Mackinnon is torture.

With all due respect, the difference between your post and my post is that, well, my post is an analysis of a primary source whereas yours is a sort of retelling of the popular narrative. I was specifically trying to cut through that kind of tertiary approach to get to the primary material. I can’t prove that my understanding of TAFTOS and her other work is correct of course, but I was trying to show that the underlying ideological framework is of a different character to that narrative developed for public consumption- where it’s all watered down to significant degrees.

Mackinnon’s theory is quite clear, she opens with the marxist metaphor and runs from there, or at least totters along in strappy heels, and every page of the book reeks with an assumption that all of gender relations are sexual in nature. It is deeply disturbing work if you don’t share that assumption. And that assumption, as I tried to show, derives directly from an intense puritanism. She never even tries to justify her opinion of sex itself; it is so ingrained into her that she cleraly doesn’t even imagine she needs to.

We can’t use terms like “sexist” and “sexual harrasment” in casual vernacular ways- although people regularly do- because we need to go back to what they actually mean, as defined by the people who entered them into the lexicon. The word “harrassment” did not enter into the lexicon in this context until Mackinnon et al put it there, and it is her/their interpretations which drive activists. It doesn’t matter what you or I might want to think the term means, it is what the activist feminist movement believe it means, and that is the pseudo-marxist theoretical underpinning. Without expropriaton of sexual value as I described above, it means nothing.

I could say I feel “harrassed” by women in dungarees. You’d laugh at me. You’d be right. (Before you accuse me of stereotyping here, one of my cousins, of whom I’m very fond, is a full-on dungareed lesbian). Sexual harrassment is, by definition, the expropriation of sex from women by men. It’s not some vague “I don’t like being whistled at” thing. So let’s discuss it in those precise terms.

And Ben, just to nip your nitpickery in the bud, what I actually said was that she “defined and popularised” the term. So I think you’d better drop it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Sorry, posting again

That last long post of mine said not very much in too many words. My point is that without the theoretical sexual harrassment underpinning provided by Mackinnon (and yes, others) issues like wolf whistling become nothing more than a question of politeness, and that is purely arbitrary, like whether or not a gentleman should wear a hat.

in relation to harassment above ^ not the origin to the word.. but rather it’s meaning today and its legal implications.

I’m not arguing against LASH, I’m arguing against the specific idea that wolf-whistling is harassment (how many times does this need repeating?). Represent the debate correctly, please, Jo. This is therefore an ideas-based debate.

Why aren’t you arguing against LASH, John?

Ian- As I understand it, they’re fighting some pretty abusive things, and I don’t find that objectionable.

John, I don’t understand. If you’re a follower of the rest of the harrassment narrative, what’s the big deal about wolf-whistling? By definition, it’s just as sexist as all the rest of the stuff on LASH’s agenda. I don’t see how you can support a wolf-whistle but not “nice arse”.

– quoting me: “And the way you make her out, she is a radical theorist at that.”

Yes, I say “make her out” because I don’t know her work myself, I only have your re-telling of it to go on. But my point was, if she IS so radical, why is she the only source on which you are basing your entire opinion.

– “All of which devolved from, and encapsulate, the gender feminist theoretical model.”

In your opinion, which I do not accept.

– “She was at least present at the consciousness raising session(s) where the term was coined, and to argue about who first uttered the word is utter nitpicking.”

I do not believe that the concept of sexual harrassment was generated entirely by her and this consciousness-raising session. What you argue is the MacKinnonist theory of sexual harrassment may well have been generated in this session.

– “You do know that consciousness raising is a marxist method?”

So what?

– ““Sexual harrassment” as a term and belief didn’t spontaneously generate out of nowhere. It was developed by a small number of feminist theorists and activists, and Mackinnon was the one who developed its legalistic form.”

This may well be true, but regardless, sexual harrassment as a concept, in the form in which it is commonly understood and exists today (rather than in the radical terms you say it was conceived), has been accepted by society. Not because we’ve all been duped into believing the ranting of a radical feminist, but because we all agree with it.

Ben, it seems like “sexual harassment as a concept, in the form in which it is commonly understood and exists today” is somewhat in dispute, hence this whole discussion. Ian B rightly points out that the history of the term illuminates what it means now.

I’d argue that a whistle is just speech — it’s just a sound. You deal with speech you don’t like by replying with more speech, or by walking away.

Arguing that speech on its own can be harassment, and then saying that harassment is illegal, is to answer speech with violence.

No, surely harassment must be more than just speech to be meaningful in the sense of there being a law against it.

Ian, you’re doing more to undermine John and his point of view than any of us have managed so far. Sincerely, thank you.

John, you just seem to be labouring really hard to defend the wolf-whistle. You can claim that it’s logic you’re fighting for here, but I’m not really buying it. You’re not arguing an indisputable logical point, you’re trying to find a way to exonerate a form of sexual harassment as being classified as such with irrelevant semantics. I’m just trying to understand your motivation, really. It can’t simply be a love of empirical logic, surely?

Women are bloody annoying, they love to be told they look amazing, but then say its harassment. I bet if it was a well dressed, well groomed male, they would probably take it as a complaint. who cares if its a wolf-whistle or a cheeky wink…… Trust me, it wont just stop here, soon there be compiling that we don’t.

They always have to complain about something….

And no i’m not sexist, i’m just getting a bit tired about stupid debates which are about more or less harmless acts, when there are bigger and more important things to discuss, like wheres my dinner DAM WOMEN…. that last bit was a joke, just incase you take it the wrong way.

John, I have just found this discussion and there is so much I want to respond to. However, I will be brief and to the point:

1. Re: Your reading of Augustine. Although Augustine himself followed a life of celibacy, he recognized that this was not feasible for the majority. He preached companionship and fidelity in marriage. Based partly on Augustine’s teachings, the medieval Catholic church introduced the legal necessity of consent to marriage. (I’m not an apologist for the Catholic church; I just happen to have a doctorate in medieval studies.) Victorian prudery and its descendants owe more to the growth of psychoanalysis as a discipline than to medieval Catholicism.

2. If wolf whistles are indeed simply compliments or flirtations, why do they never lead to further flirtation or interaction? For instance, if a woman does respond to a wolf whistle with a flirtatious or provocative comment, why does this not result in some sort of furtherance of the sexual interaction between the whistler and the whistlee? In fact, such behaviour on the part of the woman is more likely to lead to an escalation of verbal abuse. This, for me, suggests that a wolf whistle is an act of power – an arrogant assertion of subjectivity leading to the objectification of another – rather than a ‘sexual matter’.

3. If, as you have suggested several times, patriarchy is a ‘historical’ context, one from which we have moved on, I have only one question: Was Melissa’s surname ‘Wright’ before you married?

Jo-

I am still trying to work out what your central point is?

I’m trying to get people to address whether the concept of sexual harrassment, as rigorously defined, is valid. Because if it is, wolf whistling is guilty as charged. If sexual harrassment as rigorously defined is invalid, wolf whistling is innocent.

I have attempted to introduce a rigorous definition of sexual harrassment (with admittedly some derogatory analysis of its originator(s)) because we need to discuss what it actually is in order to assess its validity as a concept.

Hannah-

Victorian prudery and its descendants owe more to the growth of psychoanalysis as a discipline than to medieval Catholicism.

Not sure what point you’re making there (esp. about psychoanalysis, which came later). Victorian prudery descended directly from the Puritans (protestant fundmentalists) via groups like the Quakers, Methodists and Evangelical Anglicans. It flowed in the social reform and proto-progressive movement (in the States), both of which were fervently religious, and then via various movements reignited in the “radical” feminists as a counter-reaction against the liberal twentieth century reaction against Victorianism.

The overwhelmingly sexual focus of modern “radical” feminism- which has largely subsumed the whole feminist movement- and remarkable correspondence to progressive era campaigns (e.g. the revival of the White Slavery Panic) is a direct illustration. Seen in those terms, we see that the phenomenon known as “political correctness” (which includes sexual harrassment etc as a major component) is just a revival of Victorian hyper-moralist values.

women are becoming more sexist then men, they are trying to restrict us of everything, and when we try and stand up for are selves they wont have it and say were even more sexist, women sexual harass men all the time, they also wolf-whistle, and even grope us men, and i know that some of you are going to say men enjoy it, but isn’t that the same as what your trying to say here…. Us men have feelings to…were.not all pigs, as you women always call us.

I think we in an age where if your slightly abit cheeky, you get stoned to death, if a man cant express his emotions anymore, doesn’t that make you sexist towards men, trying to deprive us of are free speech.

Here here John

pipe down andy!! funny you should mention stoning .. Maybe you are unaware but many countries still stone women to death for crimes against chastity (being sexually active in any way).. this andy is down to the very real sexual opression women face around the globe every day… due to the very real oppression they face. you are a moron andy and your comments are so moronic I think you should keep them to yourself

b, If your allowed to voice you opinion, why cant i. also i cant speak for other nations, or other governments. I let you have your views and i dont call you moronic, you just being sexist against men, get of your high horse.

John, Jo completely nailed you a the sexist you are in one paragraph about 20 posts ago and you haven’t even had the character to acknowledge it. Tell us again, why are you and I judged on our achievements while she is judged on her sex appeal? This is the central point, your assertions are wrong and your arguments are worthless because you are clearly (albeit perhaps unknowingly) a sexist, along with most of those following along with you in this debate. You are all regularly showing flashes of ignorance, prejudice and insensitivity.

Also, I would like to point out that I am a fairly average guy that manages to be happy, maintain good relationships and have a healthy sex drive without treating women like shit. So don’t try that reverse sexism crap. It exists, but not here.

I agree that sexual harassment/ sexism fundementally is a male asserting sexual power over a female.

Jo, the problem with that line of reasoning is that women have more sexual power than men, which is why intense patriarchies introduce increasing levels of force to prevent them exercising it (e.g. the burka, honour/shame systems and so on). One of the few near-constants across societies is that women are the sexual gatekeepers who decide whether or not the man is getting any or not, to put it bluntly.

This was very nicely summed in a comedy show I watched once, I think it was “Coupling”. A couple were out on a first date and the dialog went something like;

Him: There’s one difference between you and me.
HEr: What’s that?
Him: You know whether we’re going to have sex tonight or not.

The comedy then ensued from her telling him they would. Such an exchange in a society in which men are sexually more powerful would make no sense.

In an attempt to reduce her to a sexual object for his pleasure and diminishing her authority and power, by taking her actions as ‘male pleasing’, therefore diminishing her ’self’. The expropriation of which you spoke earlier.

Even if that’s true, you’re stuck with the problem that it’s only an “attempt”. It’s the woman who decides whether it’s a success or not. If we accept this interpretation, we’re still stuck with the problem that the woman is deciding how much she is going to please any male.

Seen in that light, a demand for freedom from actions defined as sexual harrassment is actually a demand for even more power; that is that the full force of the State (via the Law) be deployed to prevent men even making enquiries or simply expressing an interest. The fact that the State actually does pander to such demands is surely proof beyond doubt that in our society, in sexual terms women have the greater power.

Another more simple demonstration is that women are paid (often very handsomely) to remove their clothes, and men pay just to look.

Thank you for your post Ian. It’s good to know that rape survivors (such as myself) can take comfort in the fact that women have greater sexual power.

Ian your insensitivity is astonishing!!! men clearly have more sexual power as they have more physical strength I love how youve gone from quoting McKinnon to coupling!!

You people (Ian and John) need to get a life. And I hope wherever you get it.. is miles away from me and my life.. because you are disgustingly backwards, ignorant, naive and devoid of all empathy… your arguments do not add up, they are disjointed and confused. Your pseudo intelligence is really pathetic to listen to.

Ian you never did answer the question a few threads ago about you’re actual feelings on equality? Do you want women to be unequal to men? If so why? If not then how do suppose women should go about becoming equal?

Laura, strings of insults like that don’t help very much. You may notice that even when I was laying into Mackinnon, I did explain what is wrong with her and why.

Ian you never did answer the question a few threads ago about you’re actual feelings on equality? Do you want women to be unequal to men?

No.

If so why?

Because I want to live in that kind of world, and on a theoretical level Hume’s Guillotine can be proven to show that nobody can ever assert a right to rule another person, but that’s getting a bit technical.

If not then how do suppose women should go about becoming equal?

I suspect our definitions of “equal” are different. Mine is simply that everybody should be equal in the eyes of a Common Law, and by that measure women are already in a higher position than men. For me, equal means that the law is entirely gender, race, sexuality, etc etc neutral. It didn’t used to be that way. Now it is. So the equality job is done.

Measurement by other criteria is impossible to do objectively; different people simply have different perspectives on what is fair and equal. You can’t measure equality by statistical outcomes. It seems like it ought to be possible, but it isn’t. All you get is biased opinion.

I know you won’t believe this, but I’m a fanatical believer in the equality as human beings of men and women. That is why I turned my back on supporting feminism, because I came to believe that both its theoretical basis and public strategies are profoundly opposed to that goal and to believe that, if the feminist steamroller continues, we are all, men and women- especially women- going to end up in another nigthmare of miserable social constraint as happened in Victorian times.

Women are awesome. You deserve better.

Ian, with all due respect, I don’t want your sympathy. I was simply illustrating the problems with your ridiculous suggestion that women hold more sexual power than men.

Women may be the gatekeepers, but that doesn’t stop men using a battering ram.

John, with very little respect, I think the fact that you referred to being raped as ‘holding the trump card’ reveals the true extent of your unpleasant attitude towards women.

This sort of nonsense is exactly why we still need feminism.

Hannah et al., I think we have now progressed to the point were “the round-about” has come into play, its becoming obvious that folk in support of “the wolf-whistle most be banned campaign” are somewhat bordering on the extreme. I wouldn’t be far off since people are starting to become abusive and offensive to John who in all his right as a free man living in a free western society can say and believe whatever he wants. Also I have found his comments to be of truth and unbiased. Those wishing to prove their point are in all likelihood “hurt” “angry” and painfully, “shamed” people. I believe that many posts back, we came to a decision that the the wolf-whistle is not harassment, but rather, not classy or appropriate at times. BUT and its a but with capitals; on a social setting the wolf-whistle can be seen as appropriate (i.e. Saturday night at 12:00am). If you don’t like it well I really don’t care. If I see this getting out of hand.. then I will gladly set up my own campaign to fight against these stupid, purist, communist, campaigners who have nothing better to do than argue over a stupid thing such as the wolf-whistle. May I remind you all that there are many more appropriate issues to be resolved – Poverty, hunger, disease, financial crisis, cut backs in front line services, drug problems….. but to name a few…. why not campaign for these….

Last comment before I sign out of this pointless debate. “Nut up or Shut Up”

Thank you (whilst wolf whistling at Melissa haha:)

I must agree that whilst Jo and others make some excellent points, too often the opposing argument spills outside the lines of the debate and sadly resort to condescending and angry comments.

You may take umbrage to the whistle but in and of itself it is a sound. Whilst non verbal communication leaves itself open to misinterpretation you cannot speak in certainties for those who use it, and the reactions of those who recieve it. John clearly meant some women are validated just as I might blush and feel happy if a woman passes me with a look as if I were the diet coke man.

As it is of course those who feel subjected by the whistles that reacted strongest one might discuss the whistle in the realms of consequentialism. Is it the motive or the outcome that is most important? It is an interesting debate. If I whistle at a lady as she passes (unclassy indeed, but I then smile, nod, meaning it in the most friendly, jovial of ways) and this woman, a former victim of abuse has a panic attack is the motive or consequence most important? Silly as I was I meant no malice.

What if I call for help and rush to the womans side when I notice she is in distress? And what if it is not a woman, but a man now having the panic attack because I am a gay man whistling at a man? Surely we would all agree I ought to have employed another method but am I a monster? Am I a sexist? I would hope no is the answer to these. That is not to say of course that some would be both of these things, but the whistle alone does not prove either.

I imagine Lash’s intention is not to outlaw a sound as that would be absurd but to discourage vulgar interactions and in the process encourage other more polite interactions. A very worthwhile campaign indeed and I wish it the best.

My mind is blown by the sheer ignorance. There’s nothing you can say. You’ll just claim to have ‘logic’ on your side, downplay anything do with sexism and how it makes women feel and satisfy yourself that so long as you’re happy, there’s no problem. There’s no way to exchange ideas with such blind, thoughtless arrogance. So let’s not worry about any more. You’re beyond my pale, at least.

I was going to make a point by compiling a list of all of the horrendously sexist and ignorant quotes made by some of the men in this thread that would show that, contrary to their claims, they’re driven by ignorance and a lack of empathy rather than logic. Now I think that’s it’s just a waste of my time.

Perhaps I’ll just take the easy route and turn these tactics around. I am logical. Everyone else who disagrees passionately with me is too emotional to think straight.

That was much easier.

Actually just briefly while we’re on the subject, John: You seem to think that any consideration or evidence of human feelings is irrelevant in this debate. You’re wrong. But I guess that’s the problem with women and this crazy womens’ rights things. They just want to change the sweet deal men have and they’re so damn EMOTIONAL about it. Typical chicks, I guess.

N.B. I’m sickened to the stomach by the way you treated that woman who spoke of being raped. It was incredibly revealing though, and the main reason that I’ve decided that I’d quite like to wrap up my conversation with you.

You’ll all obviously throw your hands up and deny this but this thread is chock full of sexism and ignorance. Reading this has opened my eyes to some of the disgusting attitudes other men hold and has made me feel that’s more important than ever to be outspoken on the role of women in our culture and yes, even to proudly proclaim feminist ideals. If that’s the antithesis of your school of thought John, I’ll gladly sign up.

For this, John. I guess I’ve got to sincerely thank you. So here it is. Thanks, John. You’ve really changed my thinking on a lot of things (although probably not in the way you would prefer.)

This has been a serious eye-opener. Seriously, John, thanks for the discussion. As one closing thought I’d like to perhaps humbly suggest that you please try to consider the how hurtful and damaging things that you might consider harmless could actually be. Once you’ve got your head around this, and I know it’s hard to accept, but maybe consider that in some of these cases, you’d bring more good into the world by putting the feelings of those truly negatively affected by such things before your own casual assumptions on what they represent.

Cheers John. Goodbye forever I hope. Best wishes. x

Goodbye peter, you were pretty useless anyway, just rambled on about pretty much nothing, i know i cant talk but at least i admit it… i would love to see the list you were going to make, but became to lazy to actually follow up. Why mention it in the first place.

As for hurting people with our views, you hurt me with yours, you gave me a bloody headache. But what can i say.

Andy- have you ever considered going to see anyone about your evident lack of mental intellect? Maybe you should argue for better government help for children with learning difficulties. I think that would be a better use of your time.

“Thank you (whilst wolf whistling at Melissa haha:)”

I send you a wink from across the pond

“Suck my balls”

Well said.

Quinney- Haha. Since the beginning of this discussion almost 200 comments ago, I’ve wondered that exact thing…

To answer your question, part of the problem thus far can I think be attributed to a sort of inevitable dichotomy: the people who object to the ‘outspoken’, unreserved, ‘frank’ act of a wolf-whistle will invariably not react well to a straight-speaking, frank defense of it. What Peter calls insensitive is really just a kind of directness in speech which rubs people of his ilk the wrong way. It’s therefore not really about the subject but the style, not the topic but the tone. I prefer a rational conversation that cuts to the meat of an issue; sometimes that pisses off people who tend to tread carefully around issues which people have ‘feelings’ over. I’ve noticed the same reaction to the way people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens speak; notionally, abstractly, academically (ie. on the topic) rather than emotionally. People more accustomed to formal debate may have less regard for style and tone than the average reader. Andy says finally some people are talking sense… it’s his response to the relief of seeing less emotional and reactionary opinions, since he responds better to ‘formal logic’.

Still, there are finally some good dissenting voices.

C says he whistles as a compliment and if a woman takes it the wrong way it’s not his fault… Nicolas drills into that thought by asking if it’s the motive or the outcome that’s most important? To return to an earlier point in the conversation, it’s my observation that many men in many places don’t expect a hostile reaction to their whistle; the outcome is generally expected to be a smile over the shoulder. So Nicolas is right to imply that most whistling comes from men with good motives and not sexism as alleged by the feministas on the site.

Tim says my detractors here are “bordering on the extreme.” Yes, and reading from the same hymnsheet with barely a point of dissention between them, with early comments from the founder of LASH…. (all friends, maybe?) Either way, I think if we’d had more ‘normal’ people involved, this would have been a very different discussion. Though not as interesting!

Finally, Sue says she met her husband through a wolf-whistle… more anecdotal evidence, I guess. Thanks for sharing Sue.

my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not depart it
with ‘we leave it to you to decide’.