h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Memo to self: Seems an interesting thread - bookmark to look through later

Contribution from Confucius: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

It's kinda like the sound of two heads rolling:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12692812


"Peter, Peter, Pumpkin eater.
Had a wife and couldn't keep her.
Put her in a pumpkin shell
and there he kept her very well."



~jwf~

I assume he broke the Sharia Law?

Meanwhile, a brief reminder of what happens to women who don't wear burkhas: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/05/hands_up_if_you.

TRiG.

Curiously relevant, posted this week on Moment of Moore.

http://www.momentofmoore.com/day/2011/03/09

I have a question, and would really like some feedback.

I don't know any women of my aquaintence who haven't been harassed on the street by either several men (some in cars), or lone men walking by or... First time for me, I was 15; last time was a couple of months ago, and I'm 60 now. What makes men do this?

I'd like to say I believe that most men don't, but there are so many who do. The most likely trigger might be that they feel egged on by their male companions. However, it doesn't explain the "follow her home" ones, does it? Really, I'd like some other theories, please.

I could say something about (my view of) provocation but not about what you're asking, SpaceCadette.
The cartoon posted by toybox @205 - that, I do not understand.

"I'd like to say I believe that most men don't, but there are so many who do."

Isn't it far more likely that a few men do it a lot, rather than a lot of men doing it occasionally? It's surely the case that the vast majority of men don't act like this.

As for why.... I've really no idea. A combination of alcohol, bravado, and inadequacy/powerlessness I expect. I'd be amazed if there were many people who've never been harassed or abused in the street by complete strangers. It's not just something that happens to women or is perpetrated by men, of course... not that that means that there's an equivalence...

Since it's an almost universal experience for most women, if it was just a few louts, they must be jet-setters to get around that much!

I wonder if it's that the people doing the harassment are unaware that it's insulting and/or threatening to the recipients? Maybe they feel it's normal expected behaviour?

depends how many bad movies or out of touch friends and advisors they have

>>I wonder if it's that the people doing the harassment are unaware that it's insulting and/or threatening to the recipients? Maybe they feel it's normal expected behaviour?<<

Maybe not expected but perhaps normal? Quite a few seem to assume the victim thinks it's as amusing as they do themselves - or don't care.

""thinks it's as amusing as they do themselves - or don't care.""

or in this day of ipods and texting, are oblivious and dont notice the sad sack following them around!!!

"What makes men do this? "

Examine what's happening.

In the normal course of things, women have a power over men. They have the power to reject sexual advances. When they exercise that power, it makes the man in question angry, ashamed, bitter and insecure. He fears he is not really a man unless he can have the woman he wants.

So: insecurity. Fear. Bitterness.

Most men run this risk when they approach women. Men may earn more than women on average, may hold more senior posts in industry than women, blah blah - but every single vaguely attractive woman has the power to reduce any man psychologically simply by rejecting him. And rejection happens to every single man.

Most - the vast majority - deal with it, laugh about it, moan about it, but just suck it up and deal with the fact that yes, ladies, you have all the power. The power to say "Get lost, creep."

Some men don't like that, and can't deal with it. Some of them simply quietly hate women for it. Others are more vocal in their hatred. And others get their revenge physically. But these men are a tiny, tiny minority. Unfortunately, it only takes a few men wolf-whistling in the street to make sure every vaguely attractive woman gets whistled at on a reasonably regular basis.

Why do they do it? Because it's a form of sexual advance that is set up in advance to fail. If they approached you and said something like "You look very attractive. Would you like to go for a coffee?", they know they will gain much kudos (among their friends and in self-esteem) if you agree, but the very, very likely response will be "*&%^ off." They will look bad to their crew of internal psychological critics and to any friends who may be watching. Their approach looked like it was sincere, and it was rebuffed. They failed.

But if they just shout "Show us your !", they know there's no realistic possibility of any woman ever saying "Really? MINE? Oh, what a lovely compliment. Here you go...". It's a crude sexual advance that we know will fail. Therefore there's no shame in it failing. But there IS still kudos in having made the advance and having it be "successful", success in this case being measured in the shame or embarrassment caused to the target.

How can it be stopped? It's a crude idea, but I'd be very, very surprised if any man ever wolf-whistled a woman on a day when he'd got laid before he left the house. There's a reason boxers abstain from sex before fights - sex saps male aggression. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another incentive that would work as well. Anyone?

On a related note, we condemn our politicians when it transpires they've had extra-marital affairs. Bear in mind these are the people who direct our armed forces to war. If they're not getting enough punani at home, it can have fatal consequences for a lot of people. In my ideal world, all male politicians worldwide with any connection to defence decisions would be assigned, on taking office, a well-paid ministerial harem and orders to use it. Picture that world - nobody would ever go to war!

Fair enough, good point, Twaggers.

and - Twaggers for PM. !
Now, who among you will volunteer to service him?

You really *haven&#39;t* heard of Lysistrata, have you? There the women stopped a war by quite opposite means.

(opposite means ?????... tiptoes out)

>>The cartoon posted by toybox @205 - that, I do not understand.

It's about Hoo and men who think that a woman walking down the street is provoking them sexually.

I agree with some of Tiggy's reasoning about why some men behave like SC was describing. But I disagree that it's because women have power over men. Sure they have power, but it's just normal human power of self determination. It's not power OVER in the sense that they can make men do anything, and this is the fundamental creepiness of TIggy's view - he sees women as controlling something that is essentially in men's brains (cue the theme from the Twiglight Zone). And the solution to this isn't in men's brains, it's in women's behaviour (if only they'd have more sex with men everything would be alright ). But it wouldn't. Because the problem isn't in aggression per se, it's in the beliefs that underpin and validate the aggressive behaviour. Beliefs can be changed, which begs the question of why some men won't or don't want to.


As for how many men engage in this behaviour, I think in some places it's not uncommon, but agree in general it's not the majority of men. But it is the majority of men that support and condone the culture that the behaviour exists in. Until men start telling each other that the behaviour is bullshit and won't be tolerated, it will be tolerated and will continue.

How many men here are willing to speak out against men who behave like this? What are the consequences of doing so, and what are the responses of the people involved?

It's no different from dogs sniffing each others arses.

"How many men here are willing to speak out against men who behave like this? "

Me. Assuming that by "speaking out", you mean, noting in a civilised conversation with other like-thinking people that I consider such behaviour unacceptable.

If by "speaking out" you mean actually confronting those perpetrating it, well, no thanks. As I might have pointed out, those people are specifically the most testosterone-poisoned, aggressive types in society, and I don't like getting punched much.

The majority of men do NOT "support and condone the culture that the behaviour exists in". That's feminist bullshit, right there. We just don't like getting punched much. And, frankly, if it's a choice between you getting whistled at and me getting punched, it's time for you to put your fingers in your ears.

"I disagree that it's because women have power over men."

Well, you would, wouldn't you? Your narrative requires women to be powerless. Acknowledging any power they have weakens your argument.

"Sure they have power, but it's just normal human power of self determination."

Pretending that that doesn't have powerful effects on other people is simply disingenuous. John Donne had it right - no man (or woman) is an island.

"It's not power OVER in the sense that they can make men do anything"

Hmm. If a man shouts sexually suggestive things to you, then, that's fine. He's just exercising his power of self-determination. Just by talking, he certainly doesn't have any power over you in the sense that he can make you do anything.

Or is that different?

No. It isn't. It's exactly the same. Of COURSE he has power over you by his words. He can make you feel fear. And that fear can make you do things - clutch your bag close, cross the street, walk faster. Did he MAKE you do those things? Is it creepy to suggest he did?

"he sees women as controlling something that is essentially in men's brains (cue the theme from the Twiglight Zone)."

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

You're saying that women, by verbally rejecting verbal sexual advances, can have no effect on or responsibility for the feelings or actions of the men they reject, and any actions are thus entirely the responsibility of the men in question.

Yet AT THE SAME TIME you're saying that crude verbal sexual advances by men can and do have an effect on the feelings and actions of women, and that therefore, AGAIN, it's the men who are responsible.

Are women responsible for ANYTHING?

"And the solution to this isn't in men's brains, it's in women's behaviour"

Well, no, solution exist in men's brains and in women's behaviour.

I merely observed that on the one hand you have a job of reversing three million years of evolution by, presumably, some process of neurological reprogramming of men's brains, and on the other you have the possibility that certain men should be targetted for some therapeutic rumpy-pumpy by paid operatives.

And I'm pointing out that one of these courses of action sounds like something from a science fiction plotline and has no realistic chance of existing, let alone succeeding, and the other could be accomplished tomorrow given the right legislative framework. There is no shortage of women prepared to sell sex for money. My point is we should be employing them to use their services where they'd do more societal good.

Nah, I think we can be guilty of over-analysing this. It's just preening behaviour, as seen throughout the animal kingdom. Alpha males (or those that imagine they're Alpha males) asserting their dominance over those around them - including other males. It's just showing off.

And it's something that most men grow out of, behaviour that's part of our biological history.

Unfortunately, some men are a swing closer to the trees than others