Catcalls: The New Hate Speech
[guest post by Dana]
Will this madness never end? The viral catcalling video has inspired professor of sociology and director of the Center for Legal Studies at Northwestern University Laura Beth Nielsen to propose a law that would prohibit catcalling. This is street harassment and Nielsen wants it to stop right now:
The police may largely ignore harassment on the street because men often do not understand how pervasive it can be, but most importantly because there are no laws being violated in such encounters.
…
I’d propose a law that would prohibit street harassment and would also be consistent with our First Amendment jurisprudence about other kinds of hate speech (cross-burning in Virginia vs. Black) that intimidates, harasses and perpetuates inequality. It would allow states and cities to recognize street harassment for what it is: physical and psychological acts that intimidate, exclude, subordinate and reinforce male dominance over women.
The law would prohibit “uninvited harassing speech or actions targeted toward individuals in public spaces on the basis of sex or sexual orientation when done with the intent to intimidate.” Violation of the law could be a tort, meaning a woman could sue her harasser; an infraction, like a ticket with a fine; or even a misdemeanor. Even if rarely enforced, the symbolism of a law weighing in on the side of equality would have powerful effects.
If the law has an appropriate role prohibiting sexual harassment, violence and rape in our homes, workplace and universities, why not the street? Shouldn’t gender equality exist everywhere?
Curtail the First Amendment and make men of every stripe come to heel because oh no, rude and obnoxious catcalls made by ill-mannered, disrespectful louts. And based on the video, consider which group(s) would be impacted most by the proposed law. I have come to believe that the potential list of female grievances is never-ending and eventually, as a result, men will just cease interaction with women altogether because every single move will be the wrong move. At some point in time, it just won’t be worth their effort as the risk will have become too great. And I guess that means women will finally get what they seem to have been fighting for all along: the knowledge that they have conquered their opponents.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (8e74ce) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:15 pmHello Dana.
Well, the name was the big tipoff but when I saw “Laura Beth Nielsen” my first thought was “white woman peeved at the black and brown guys doing the catcalling.” Wait for a counterattack of “white privilege” in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . . .
JVW (60ca93) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:25 pmLaura Beth Nielsen has no neck.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:29 pmLaura Beth Nielsen’s ears touch her shoulders.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:30 pmIn the video didn’t they count people just saying hi as Harrassment? If they pass a law, who defines what Harrassment is?
Tanny O'Haley (066e8f) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:38 pmTanny, one of the guys in the video was singled out for special ridicule for the crime of walking the young lady through an especially rough section of neighborhood.
Keeping her safe! That was deemed offensive.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/3/2014 @ 10:43 pmthe knowledge that they have conquered their opponents.
It will be a lonely victory that they celebrate.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/3/2014 @ 11:27 pmthis will all end in a female driven Utopia.
her word choice, not mine, sexist pig that i am.
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 11/4/2014 @ 12:17 amWho will kill spiders for her?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/4/2014 @ 12:21 amrather than craft & pass such a law, why doesn’t she and her fellow sufferers just man up and grow a pair, so they can deal with such low rent stuff themselves, instead of waiting for big daddy government to come save the day?
oh…. wait.
never mind.
redc1c4 (269d8e) — 11/4/2014 @ 12:22 amJudging by her photo, Laura Beth Nielsen, has little to worry about ever being catcalled. Just as it is said about men compensating for “tiny peni” by racing around in a Corvette, it seems that unattractive-white-law professor-feminist-types propose laws that will never effect them. Oh so clever.
Ipso Fatso (10964d) — 11/4/2014 @ 2:09 amFat, ugly lesbians don’t like it when attractive feminine women get attention. “There ought to be a law!” “Well, yeah. Against you. Get back in that closet. And clean it!”
nk (dbc370) — 11/4/2014 @ 4:05 amPapertiger, he wasn’t escorting her through the neighborhood. He was walking alongside her to give passerby the impression that they were together.
He’s likely one of these guys:
“Why didn’t you get theft insurance on your hoverbike?”
“That’s just a scam.”
“How? This is a bad neighborhood.”
“We’re EEEVIL. *ahem* We would make the neighborhood bad.”
JWB (c1c08f) — 11/4/2014 @ 4:19 amEver notice that most of the males who “catcall” are those with the least to offer? “Hey, baby… Wanna come back to my crib? it’s that dumpster right over there.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:09 am“Yo… Dr. Nielsen… baby you gotta sweet fullback’s neck!”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:12 amAren’t catcalls “love” speech?
Peter (1d4db1) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:31 amThe same leftists who believe Republicans want to police what goes on in the bedroom want to make it illegal for men to have unregulated interaction with women. Because it constitutes harassment intended to:
Jeez, why does this have to be so complicated? Just make it mandatory for women to wear a burqa, like they do in other countries that also believe women are inherently inferior and powerless against men.
Remember girls, listen to your ladyparts today and vote for the leftists, who’ll act in loco parentis as the guardians you can’t get through life without.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:33 amThat’s easy. Marxist lesbian wymyn’s studies professors who contend all heterosexual sex is rape.
The same people who’ve been coming up with the definitions all along.
Next question.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:38 amRemember, “they [Democrats] are actually people who want a good life”…
“No matter how badly the RINO offered by the establishment Republican disagrees with you on ten percent of your policy positions, he does not disagree with you one hundred and ten percent, and while he might harm the nation through corruption, or foolery, he is not actively and energetically hellbent on dismantling and destroying the nation. He does not hate and loathe the Nation, nor does he seek the death of you and yours through war and plague and famine.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/4/2014 @ 5:59 amThe Democrats apparently do, to judge by their actions. If you believe these are honest men who merely have a different theory of political economics than you, explain their unwavering support for terrorism, for sodomy, for voter fraud, for legalizing recreational drug use, for blocking education reform, and their fanatical, nay, diabolical support for tax-funded prenatal infanticide.”
I get the feeling that this type of issue takes place mostly in dense urban areas like New York City. In other words, it is more of a local thing that is being extrapolated throughout the country for political gain. Has anyone hear of this in other cities?
Denver Todd (fe903f) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:00 amNo
JD (bc23a6) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:06 amAccording to certain feminists, women are so strong that they should be in the infantry, work as fire fighters, and CEOs of every company. But they are so fragile that hearing someone say, “Hey, baby” on the street paralyzes them with fear, to the point where such behavior needs to be outlawed.
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:15 amRedc, here’s a line from that article:
Biocide planners? So, if you’re thinking about cutting down a tree, does that make you eligible for euthanasia? What if you just want a rib-eye steak for dinner?
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:22 amBesides, gender doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a social construct. Since men are just a figment of some old white man’s imagination, how can a figment of the imagination oppress anyone?
Can you leftists Puhleeeze get your story straight (if that’s not too patriarchically heteronormative)?
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:23 amDemolition Man’s San Angeles, not a cautionary tale, but an aspiration,
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:33 amGood post, Dana. But as to this:
You’ve forgotten the second half of the old vaudeville groaner, whose continuing humorous value surely derives from its universal truth across time and space:
Can’t live with ’em. Can’t live without ’em.
And as I’ve explained to both my sons and my daughters, therein lies much of the frustration and glory of life.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:36 amI wonder how many people note the irony.
Michael Ejercito (4775b5) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:42 amBeldar,
Dana is right. Women are doing everything they can to live without men. They have science to impregnate them and government to support them and their children. They can do any job because of rules that water-down qualifications for jobs that take more strength and endurance, and they can even marry other women if they want marriage. Women don’t need men anymore, and more and more of them don’t want men either.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/4/2014 @ 6:59 amOnly if they pass a law against NAGGING SPOUSES…..
Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:00 amThere is no irony, Michael. Feminists see themselves as equal to men in every way but emotion, but it’s that emotionalism that makes them better than men, not weaker. More compassionate and caring. More nurturing. If you don’t get that now, you will once Hillary’s campaign starts in earnest.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:02 am#28 “Women don’t need men anymore, and more and more of them don’t want men either.”
If you want to see a violent world and break down of society and law ….. this is exactly how it will happen.
Males untethered to family and responsibility are prone lawlessness and violence.
Feminists would be well served to get back to using traditional culture as the mallet to get men on board.
The alternative will a dramatic increase in cavemen treating women the old old old old fashioned way.
Won’t end well for the Feminists.
Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:03 amAnd I speak from personal experience.
If not for family and wife, I’d be in jail no doubt.
Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:04 amBut in order for women to get rid of men entirely, they would have to have exclusive power over whether a baby is born or not — and be empowered to know the sex of the baby before birth and end its life if it is the wrong sex.
Oh.
Patterico (9c670f) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:30 amBurkas! And harems (meaning the “women only” place in the house, not the other thing)! No female going out in public unless accompanied by her husband, father, brother or adult son. And Chanel No. 19. I like Chanel No. 19, and with all those burkas in Chicago in August the rest of the population will appreciate it too.
nk (dbc370) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:36 amSorry, but the people forcing this model on society are anything but women. They’re delusional outliers who believe that punishing others for their low self-esteem will somehow make them more acceptable.
Sewer Urchin (aae5d5) — 11/4/2014 @ 8:27 amDRJ, your comment made me smile, especially this: “Women don’t need men anymore, and more and more of them don’t want men either.”
I take your point! Certainly the language and reasoning employed by the women to whom you refer is more sharp and vulgar than when we were youngsters, or probably throughout American history (and maybe world history, too).
But I have a profound regard for the hard-wired parts of our natures. Society used other names for these sorts of women in the past, but in the big picture and over time, I don’t think their fraction of the total population is changing — not, at least, if you look beneath the surface of the rhetoric.
Of course, sometimes the rhetoric becomes so toxic that it doesn’t matter whether the person spewing it is secretly deeply conflicted.
So: I’m going to re-read “Lysistrata” and count myself lucky that my own sons & daughters seem to have sorted this out reasonably well.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/4/2014 @ 9:01 amApparently this trick doesn’t work in a place where unemployed louts hang out in the suburbs, rather than the city.
scrubone (c3104f) — 11/4/2014 @ 4:59 pmhttp://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11352633
I always greet most women (and most men) who pass through the periphery of my construction sites… I think a “Good Morning, oh and hey, watch out over there…” gives women more of an assurance that they are OK and protected while passing through than a blank speechless stare watching to be sure they don’t stumble through the caution tape.
steveg (794291) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:58 pmI’ve worked at local universities and never have had complaints and usually the women start to ask questions about what is going on, want to know what it is going to look like when it is done… the women who like men get along fine and those that don’t like men can avoid the area, (although some women I’m sure were lesbians were interested and confident) but they can’t bury me over a smile that says “good morning, watch out for the ditch beyond the orange cones” One thing is I never say anything about how they look… courteous and professional, but never a “hey you look great in that short skirt and boots..” that would be stupid, even when it is staggeringly true. Those boots and short skirt were probably not put together with me or my guys in mind… and if by chance she did have us in mind, that is her problem to solve… we are professionals and we’ve got a job to do
Oh come on. If some guy walked along side your daughter for that long, you’d all be screaming about danger and harassment too. Especially if he was black. Who are you kidding? or if men were yelling out “smile” and saying “DAMN” as they looked her body up and down. You really want us to believe that you are happy or would be happy when your daughters receive this kind of attention?
Mike (6af3a8) — 11/5/2014 @ 5:42 amI couldn’t agree with you more, Mike. Burkas! Now!
There are women walking naked in Times Square, Mike. With only pasties over their nipples and a small patch down under. They’re perfectly safe. This girl you’re talking about deliberately picked the kind of neighborhoods where she’d get the “attention” she got and walked around for ten hours to get enough on camera. It was all a put up job, Mike.
nk (dbc370) — 11/5/2014 @ 6:14 amWell, there were on Columbus Day weekend. Don’t rush there, just yet, without checking the weather first. It might be too cold in New York now.
nk (dbc370) — 11/5/2014 @ 6:25 amNK, the “kinds of neighborhoods” isn’t the problem. It’s the attitude perpetuated by far too many men that our wives and daughters are nothing but meat for you to holler at, scream at, make sexual suggestions, and rape if the mood hits you.
Do you feel that way about your own daughters or just ours?
Mike (6af3a8) — 11/5/2014 @ 9:51 amnk (dbc370) — 11/5/2014 @ 6:25 am
The weatehr changes, and it ca be 20 degrees hotter or cooler several days apart. The other day, at night it got down to 39 degrees. Right now it is 62 degrees. No, 60 degrees. Yesterday was fine. Tomorrow and Friday it is forecast it will go up to the mid-50s and rain. Sat 48 degrees will be the high. Sunday will be a little warmer but showers are forecast.
It is expected to rain late tonight, close to dawn, when the temperature will drop toward about 51 degrees. I get the feeling it rains during the night.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/weather-forecast/349727
Sammy Finkelman (0e1021) — 11/5/2014 @ 2:39 pm