Female Reader Has Interesting Perspective on NY Bill to Make Staring at Women a Crime
December 3rd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Recently I told you about a new New York bill which would make staring at women a crime. I wrote:
"I agree that in some cases staring at women can be rude. Making it a crime is quite another matter. I would also add that some women do everything they possibly can so men will look at them. Or if that's not their intent, they sure make it seem that way."
Sheba Jones, a reader, had an interesting comment on this issue. Sheba wrote:
"Ladies, keep in mind you can't pick and choose who gets to see your butt when you wear a short skirt to try and impress the boss or the hunk in the mailroom. If you're that worried about it, wear something else. You can't always depend on someone else to be polite and not look when it's right in their face."
This seems very fair to me. Much of what women complain about is not that men are looking at them, but instead that the wrong man is looking at them. It's not fair to condemn male onlookers for this (within reason), particularly since a man usually doesn't know whether he's the right man or the wrong man.
I offer for example the picture above. The woman is clearly dressed to bring as much sexual attention to herself as possible. She goes a little overboard for my tastes, but what man wouldn't look? And why shouldn't he? And what does she have to complain about?
"));
19 queries. 0.396 seconds.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
Where's Daisy Duke going? And has anyone told Uncle Jesse?
Not someone my Mum would have liked to see me bring home at all.
My Dad, on the other hand.....
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
I don't think you could find many women or men who would disagree, other than the most ardent feminist. I mean, the idea that a man staring at a woman is oppression? Please.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Callum,
Just make note of the women that complain, and avoid them like the plague.
In the long run, avoiding those feminists will make you a much happier man.
Besides, if enough of these feminists aren't able to procreate, and coach their kids to carry on the same way, it becomes darwinistic.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
The radical feminists are among the strongest supporters of women being permitted to wear whatever they want (e.g., the recent news that women on airplanes were told to cover up was met with outrage by feminists), or nothing at all up top. Yet they want to legally forbid men from behaving in accordance with a male's basic biologoical urge to glance at the female figure. (If that sounds sexist, I would suggest that without that urge there would be no human race.) Looking at a woman, of course, does NOTHING to harm her.
I am envisioning a future where the radical feminist agenda has fully triumphed and women are permitted to walk around in public topless. Any male who gazes upon them would be charged and convicted merely on the offended woman's say-so for "rape with the eyes." He would be sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, and then forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his miserable existence. If he owes child support during that time, it won't be reduced merely because he's in jail because he's serving time for a vile, male-oriented sex offense.
To borrow an argument from the pro-abortionists: Who are these women to tell me what I can do with my body (in this case, my eyes)?
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
..As someone that was falselly accussed of rape, we are just giving these femi-beasts more power and control to falselly accuse men that hurt their feelings, don't return a call, anything...This is more feminist absurdity.
...My buddy told me a story about his violent bi-polar wife...and how she would terrorize and assalt him at her leasure!! Well on one particular attack she was on him, choking him, and he wouldn't hit her off.
Well he was just about to lose conscounsness, and his basic survival instinct over-rode his..I never hit a girl conditioning, and he shoved her off him, and she flew accross the room.
..Thats what will enevitabbly happen here in America, and around other femi-nazi attacked countries.
..Only upon seeing complete utter destruction, and societal chaos, will males finnally override their feminist conditioning, and push off the femi-beast that is choking them!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
So will it also be a crime for women to stare at men? Will men be afforded their equal protection not to be stared at? Will it make all looking at people a crime?
"Much of what women complain about is not that men are looking at them, but instead that the wrong man is looking at them."
They want attention but the right attention. I guess their skin is so thin they are afraid we will see right thru them. Oh wait...
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I propose that from now on, any man who looks at a woman have his eyes gouged-out.
It's the only way that women can be safe from the all-penetrating Male Gaze, which appears to be some kind of death-ray.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Sungjun refers to "the all-penetrating Male Gaze, which appears to be some kind of death-ray."
I LOVE IT!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I was hired for a job back in 1990 on the Boulder Colorado College Campus where two guys had just been fired for looking at girls walking by the jobsite on their lunch break. They were accused of “gawking” at female students and were fired without warning by the company, without it being required by the college.
I was told when I hired in, not to look at the female students, or there was nothing they could do to save my job. I believe the exact words were, “Looking at the female students will not be tolerated and there will be immediate dismissal for noncompliance”.
That was almost 18 years ago.
As for the gal pictured in this article, “beer goggles and closing time” are the only things that would have made her appealing to me. If I were to look at her sober, it would be only to laugh at her unattractiveness.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
And if they gouge our eyes out women would be able to close the pay gap down as men wouldn't be able to work, the Deadbeat Dad crackdown wouldn't have to deny driver's licenses to those who didn't pay child support as they couldn't drive anyway, the children would be safe from abuse as you can't hit what you can't see, rape would go down because men wouldn't be able to see who was asking for it...
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Lewis, that was great
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
..One female priveledge that is becoming quaint (and hopefuuly obsolete)..Is the female priveledge of getting a flat tire on the side of the road, and getting a man to change her flat tire for her.
..This is a cultural female privelegde that is in fact harming women, by keeping them from learning to change tires for themselves.
historical female priveledges are harming women!! And must be stopped!! It's hurting women's plight for true equality!!
If you see a women with a flat tire beside the road...think it through!! by helping her, you are in effect keeping her helpless in the long run!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
You all don't understand. She's not dressed that way for you, she's dressed that way for herself*. And besides, staring at her is obviously communicating lustful feelings on your part, and we all know that the first amendment doesn't apply to sexual issues.
*and any man who she finds acceptable to her romantic standards.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Yes, Lewis -- that was great!
And Foo, I, too, love that argument that women dress that way "for herself" (and your spin on it is dead on).
The Bill in New York is apparently moving forward, with all sorts of talk about insuring it doesn't inadvertently nab the innocent. Ha! Good luck writing such a bill.
If something is in plain view, I am allowed to look at it, stare at it, gawk at it, period. No city councilperson in New York City, of all places, is going to be able to prevent that for long. This bill will be in court within a week of its passage. In this particular case, thank goodness for the ACLU.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
This is actually the first I've heard of any law that makes STARING a crime. WTF!?
When I was a freshman in high school, an upperclassman girl with a very slutty appearance came up to me out of the blue in gym class today, told me in no uncertain terms that she wanted to fondle me (quote: "I want your *you-know-what*"), and ran off before I could get a word in.
Somehow, I get the feeling that, despite this, anything I could've done to get her punished for her pervy remark wouldn't have stuck to the wall. But they can outlaw STARING?
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
"one day," not "today."
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
"two guys had just been fired for looking at girls walking by the jobsite on their lunch break." That happened to my friend a couple of years ago. No warning--just gone.
I do think that some guys (including myself) are not conscious of how much they stare sometimes. Glancing is fine; staring is rude. Calling it oppressive is pushing it, it's certainly not something that should be made illegal, but it is rude.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The last time I looked at a geography book, New York is still located in the United States. And the last time I looked at a history or civics book, The United States is still a FREE Country. If women are allowed to dress the way they want, Men should be allowed to look at whatever they want. That is part of living in a FREE Society!! If this New York Bill passes, I should pack my bags and go live in another country, because it surely means we don't live in a FREE society to say what we feel and look at whatever we feel, whether it is RUDE or Not!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Right, Harq al-Ada. It's one thing for a private employer to fire an at will employee because of some perceived act of rudeness. Unfortunately, the kind of "rudeness" we're talking about essentially only affects males. OK, so males know they need to control their biological urges -- sexually, aggressively, etc. Most of us are OK with that within reason. Certainly the length of time of the staring, the obviousness, etc. are all questions that need to be answered to assess whether it is justified to consider such conduct "rude." But, again, at-will employees can be fired for any or no reason at all in most states. The real problem, as Harq al-Ada suggested, is when there is an attempt to outlaw such alleged rudeness practiced by males on females. That won't fly, I suspect, in any court. And if it does, we are all in trouble because that is going to open the floodgates to similar legislation everywhere, and it laws will continually push the envelope to see how "Women-Friendly" they can get before the Supreme Court finally puts the breaks on it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
An American Man's Tragic Tale, by AP
"I avoided marrying a woman out of fear of getting ruined by lawyers in divorce court,
I avoided having sex with woman out of fear of getting ruined by lawyers in "family" court, but then
I made the fatal error of looking at a woman who walked in front of me, and the defense lawyers I had to hire to avoid prison took all of my money."
The legal profession of this country, and its complicit courts and "legislators" (sic) will be treated by historians, as the greatest disease ever to have destroyed a great country.
Legislators are turning our country into the laughingstock of the world.
What a joke are we for failing to purge via de-eleciton these idiots from legislatures in our country.
What another "Absurdistan"-like, lawyer-employment-opportunity creating piece of junk legislation.
What an insult to Americans.
What a great reason to leave this country.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Forsooth! Ye peasantry must NOT be allowed to stare upon the visage of yon Queen, lest they be chastised with the cat o' nine tails upon the nearest breaking wheel.
So back to ye thatched mud-brick hovels, knaves! And lest ye forget: render a hundredweight of potatoes this month instead of the usual fourscore and ten.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Up in smoke, "Besides, if enough of these feminists aren't able to procreate, and coach their kids to carry on the same way, it becomes darwinistic."
is a nice idea and does have definite truth especially with who is more likely to get abortions. However, instead of just indoctrinating their own kids, they go after others' children though schools, college courses, and laws.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Harq al-Ada Says:
[I do think that some guys (including myself) are not conscious of how much they stare sometimes. Glancing is fine; staring is rude. Calling it oppressive is pushing it, it's certainly not something that should be made illegal, but it is rude.]
It’s not just about alleged staring. The accusations are not limited to that. Just to illustrate my point …
I was on a job in 1999 where a female employee was trying to get a sexual harassment case going against the company I was working for. It was “painfully obvious” that she was just trying to sue the company. She would blow every comment anyone made to her completely out of context, and proportion, and was painstakingly documenting each alleged occurrence.
One day she failed to show up for work and the company “top brass” called everyone into the trailer to talk to us about this female. They were visibly agitated to say the least and there was some very serious hand wringing going on. They pleaded with us to be extremely careful about how we spoke to her, what we said, and that we mustn’t avoid eye contact with her etc, etc. I’d never seen anything like it in my life and never have since.
I was one of the few people who had not been accused by her of some form of harassment simply because I was lucky enough not to have to work around her. In this meeting I spoke up and suggested they just fire her because it was so obvious what she was trying to accomplish. Every eye in that trailer was focused on me as the project manager exclaimed, “NO … NO … we can’t do that! We can’t do that!” Then I was foolish enough to add, “Well just ignore her then, that’s what I do”. Then an eerie silence came over the trailer and you could have heard a pin drop. The project manager said, “no, we can’t do that either”, in a soft spoken voice.
The next day several of us were laid off for “lack of work”. The project we were working on suddenly became less of a priority, and anyone they didn’t lay off, got transferred to different work areas. The female got laid off too and I never did hear what happened. But if you look in any major area phone book there are several pages of lawyers who specialize in sexual harassment. There are many lawyers who do nothing else.
How far “out of control” are we going to allow this situation to become before we’ve had enough?
I think the Men’s College Activist has a good point that it may come to a violent overreaction that nobody really wants.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I would stare at that woman as well, because I would be so in shock that she had actually gone out in that.
I hate when women dress like that then expect to not be stared at. This just comes down to the fact that these women don't want to take responcibility for their own actions. That's what all this Femminatzi-ism comes from.
the worst of it is that young girls are dressing like this as well. You don't even want to know what will happen to a grown man for looking at them, not that I think they can help it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Here's a solution, folks:
Imagine if all men in America refused to look an any woman wearing a "short skirt".
What do you predict would happen?
Some might predict that many women would respond by wearing even shorter skirts.
And if all men in America ignored those too?
Even shorter skirts and then slinky tops.
Ignored again?
Even less clothing.
Finally through this cycle, these women could theoretically be driven, due to a complete (and obviously "abusive") lack of attention from men, to the ultimate of walking down the street completely naked.
Then they could be locked up for indecent exposure.
End of problem.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Nice extremization AP!
People, the problem is not men or male privilege (whatever that is), the problem here is heterosexuality. How dare a man have any interest in a woman?! That is oppression! We need to outlaw heterosexuality, that will take care of things.
Well not here, but in the brilliant, "patriarchy liberated" minds. Oh wait, wasn't Ogling considered bad in those times too?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
If a law was ever enacted that made it illegal to look at someone in public who doesn't want to be viewed... then I would demand that a law be enacted that made it illegal for someone to cross my line of site in public that I didn't want to see.
Who are they to put them selves in my line of site without first checking that I wanted to see them?
Trust me, there are alot of people that I'd rather not catch sight of and if these people can be offended by being looked at, then I can be offended by being forced to see something I didn't want to see.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Once again, you guys are twisting things around, perhaps because you haven't bothered to even read the entire article about the bill that was posted. The proposed bill is not going to make staring at women a crime and it has nothing to do with "feminism", nor does it have to do with women feeling "oppressed" when men stare at them. What the proposed bill says is that it would be illegal to "repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public". Examples of this would be lurking under stairway steps and intentionally looking up women's skirts, or looking over or under the stall doors of a public restroom, not looking at a woman walking down the street with her boyfriend, while she was wearing high heels, short shorts and has the tattoo on her back showing:
"The bill states that it would be illegal for anyone to deliberately view another person in a private place when they are in a state of undress, having sex, or using the bathroom, without that person's knowledge or consent. In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public."
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
From the New York Sun.
New legislation before the City Council could make it illegal for New Yorkers to look at a naked neighbor.
Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., a Democrat of Queens, is proposing to outlaw voyeurism by extending a state law that forbids nonconsensual peeping with cameras. He'd apply the law to also include, in the city, peeping with the naked eye.
The law would target offenders who crane their necks to peer under the dresses of women scampering up and down subway stairs. But the legislation also would ensnare anyone caught glancing into the window of a private bedroom or bathroom, which, in a city full of densely packed apartment buildings, is a hazard or a pleasure of urban life, depending on how you look at it, or who your neighbors are.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Ah, the hazards of secondary sources.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
In 1965, Senator Patrick Moynihan was condemned for his observation of the consequences of family breakdown:
"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos."
December 4th, 2007 at 12:48 am
What constitutes "repeatedly go to a position to view" another person's sexual or intimate parts? How do you prove it - the action and the intention?
What constitutes sexual or intimate parts? Lips are supposed to be very sexual parts, so you cannot look at a woman's lips?
What constitutes "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public"? If they are visible they are visible, unless your public is blind or your body is selectively invisible.
Scrap that, but why is this law needed? What is the harm done? Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I get the feeling that if Seinfeld was still on TV, it would have an episode devoted to making fun of a law like this.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Alex says: But they can outlaw STARING?
Alex they can outlaw ANYTHING you or I should be naive, foolish, weak or simple enough to allow them to outlaw. And they still push this crap about our being the "Freeest", "Freeist"----Most Free nation on Earth. But I can see through that wool----Oh, no I can't, seeing through wool might get me convicted. What a load...
December 4th, 2007 at 1:41 am
In accordance with jewish law married women cover their hair as their hair, being part of their sex appeal should only be seen by their husband. Heaven forbid I should see a lock sticking out from under a woman's hat!
December 4th, 2007 at 1:48 am
"[I]nstead of just indoctrinating their own kids, they go after others' children though schools, college courses, and laws."
Oooo--sounds like the same strategy used by the religious right, as I've read in a book titled "America's War on Sex." Both the feminist left & the religious right seek to impose their ideologies on America's entire population via schools, courts, legislative halls, you name it. Our Constitution, & hence our liberty, is under assault from both sides. It's time to repeat Patrick Henry's rallying cry, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
December 4th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Billy Graham once said "If I am driving down the road and see a billboard with a naked Playboy model, there is no sin. The sin is stopping, backing up and gawking."
OK, I'll buy into Graham's thinking. A law though? It couldn't be enforced!
Plus, does it apply to women staring at men? We blame and shame men for staring, but never women. Why?
December 4th, 2007 at 8:45 am
jw, yes the law would apply to both genders -- as written. But we all know that only men and not women are deemed by society to be (1) lustful and (2) aggressive. It is precisely this stereotype that accounts for men being treating far more severely than women in criminal court actions involving crimes of alleged sex or violence. (As with any stereotype, it unfairly punishes individuals who fall within one class -- male -- while being unfairly lenient on individuals who fall within the other class -- female. This is so whether or not such treatment is necessarily deserved in the case of the particular individual in question.)
The cornerstone of the feminist agenda seeks to curtail men from behaving lustfully and aggressively vis a vis women (and children), and their agenda relies on the aforementioned stereotype to energize their devotees into action -- despite the fact that there are serious, fatal flaws in the stereotype underlying their premise.
December 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Canarsee you point out that:
"In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public.""
The problem I have with that are the words repeatedly and delibertely. Who defines "repeatedly" and "deliberately"? I get the feeling that the people posting here are afraid that this would be the proverbial inch and I frankly I agree with them.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Exactly Danny -
Laws suffer from 'Mission Creep.'
This will start off as a piece of legislation drafted with the best of intentions, but it'll be used in an increasingly authoritarian way to justify all sorts of State intervention in situations where the State has no business getting involved.
There are already plenty of laws that could be (and routinely are) used, including public order offenses, to deter the type of behaviour described (peeking over loo doors, lurking at the bottom of escalators to look up skirts etc). The situation doesn't require even MORE legislation.
In any case, exactly how big a problem is this? Are there really no more pressing problems to be solved than this in New York?
December 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Carnesse says:
"In a public place, it would be illegal for a person to deliberately or repeatedly go to a position to view "another person's sexual or intimate parts" when "such parts are not otherwise visible to the public.""
hmm ok so under that definition - all WOMEN who look at another WOMAN who is undress or walking around naked in a gym locker room should be jailed and the key thrown away. I think we are onto something there - I say pass the law - find a woman who is willing to parade around the locker room get glanced at then have her accuse woman that she is repeatedly and deliberately going to a position to view.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Is this for real?
What will be the next step? Perhaps we could sue people for breathing the air that is within 24 inches of me because that is my air. Just as absurd.
If you have your body covered in tattoos or piercings you will be starred at also, better put that on the books as a crime. Don't forget the people that get their hair died or have a mohawk haircut with battery operated lights in the mohawk, if you stare at them it should be a crime. Don't wear clothes and you will be arrested so the next time the person that is arrested should insist that all those around that are looking at them should be arrested too.
Forget about it women. Grow up. Live right.
December 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
This is absurd!! This woman and all females who dress inappropriately are asking for trouble. They get what they want and now it may be illegal? Furthermore, they insult me and every girl/woman on the face of the planet. What should be illegal is pornography, certain television programs, some of the music out there and even some fashions. A lot of skirts out there could pass for wide belts. Nothing is left to the imagination anymore. Maybe men look at this, but they sure don't want these women to father their children some day - not the decent ones anyway. Does anyone ever think of our children - there are a lot of desires being awakend that shouldn't be. These girls/women are responsible for so much immorality around the world and especially in the US. There's no more class.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Guys, you are MISSING the point. The next step will be to require women to wear burkas to prevent you from staring!
I was in the local grocery mart last year and the clerk had on a deeply V-ed shirt. The guy in front of me got an eyeful when she bagged his groceries and the guy in back of me and I got more than our share when she rang up and bagged my order.
Another family member was with me in the greater Boston area at a conference. I went back to the hotel earlier than he did. When he and another man were returning, they got into the elevator and two high school girls joined them who were dressed for their "Senior Prom". The guys decided it was time to stare at the ceiling of the elevator until they could get off at the next floor because the girls' dresses were so revealing. At first I though he was kidding and then I met one of the girls in the hallway. I have a table runner that has more material than her dress. What are these girls thinking? Or maybe the question really is, are these girls thinking at all??
December 4th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Anne,
No one, I repeat no one has been able to prove that pornography is any way shape or form is doing any harm unless it involves an already illegal act. The law is another attempt at social engineering and we know that never works (unless you put in omnipotent bureaucrats to enforce it).
As far as it is enjoyed in private by adults there is nothing wrong with pornography. I find it interesting that there is a blanket cover of acceptance for sexual behavior otherwise but when it comes to porn, some people suddenly get sensitive, even when there is no proveable harm done to anyone.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Collins:
""[I]nstead of just indoctrinating their own kids, they go after others' children though schools, college courses, and laws."
Oooo--sounds like the same strategy used by the religious right, as I've read in a book titled "America's War on Sex." Both the feminist left & the religious right seek to impose their ideologies on America's entire population via schools, courts, legislative halls, you name it. Our Constitution, & hence our liberty, is under assault from both sides. It's time to repeat Patrick Henry's rallying cry, "Give me liberty or give me death!""
How about both you types leave the rest of us the hell alone? What feminists don't realize is that while their views are mouthed by the great majority of people, their ideology is not shared by nearly the same amount. "Normal" to a feminist is "offensive" to me. Same goes for the "religious right". Hell, I bet even within those two camps there's enough people saying "enough already" to fill a stadium or two.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I have to say it - this woman is a floozy, plain and simple and she absolutely DOES dress in this manner for the attention. AND furthermore (rant building), she looks horrible.
In visual merchandising I have always maintained less is more. Ironically, when it comes to female apparel, (which is also visual merchandising - let's be honest here, ladies) - more can be less. I've finally come to the point in my life where I can admit that I was a fairly pretty young woman - I suppose because it was so long ago, it's no longer conceited to admit as much! I'd always thought I was ugly.
Anyway, I dressed nicely but never provocatively. Perhaps that's why I was never the recipient of rude comments; I don't know. Perhaps it's because I'm a short brunette, not a leggy blonde. But it might also have something to do with the fact I didn't dress like a slut.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:51 am
I recall a few years back, my twin sister whined to my daughter, "Why does your mom always get the intelligent men?" (My twin is much prettier than I. It's no secret and I learned to live with it long ago.)
My daughter (she was 26 at the time) shot back, "Because Mommy doesn't dress like a tart, go to the bars and head straight for the best looking guy in the place and make him buy her drinks then have sex with him on the same night."
OK, a bit of a stretch, but...
My sister laughed. She can dish it out but she can take it too. She's a psychologist, of all things. Hey, anyone interested? She's really pretty.
PS Not to diss good looking or generous men.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The mention of workers fired for looking at female students brought something to mind. Here in the UK it's been a comedy staple/stereotype that builders spend all their time leering at passing women, whitsling and shouting intimidating sexual comments at them - I've seen endless variations of this on TV, most recently in an episode of the BBC police sitcom "The Thin Blue Line", written by the painfully right-on Ben Elton - but it occurred to me I'd never seen it happen in real life, and never heard any woman I know complaining it's happened to them. And Belfast, my home town, has been in a constant state of rebuilding for the past thirty years, so it's not like there's been no opportunity. Obviously if it did happen it wouldn't be targeted at me, and might only happen when there's no men around, all the better to intimidate women; or alternatively, perhaps it died out in the seventies or eighties, having been so highlighted as objectionable that nobody was prepared to tolerate it anymore. So I asked my mum, who's been around longer than I have, and is a woman to boot. And she's never experienced it or seen it happen either.
It couldn't be... no... feminists exaggerating male bad behaviour to shame us all into compliance? Surely not.
And another thing occurred to me. In "The Thin Blue Line", when the boorish male copper asks his female colleague whose just been harassed by builders, why she didn't find it flattering, she referred to the builder in question as "a human gorilla with a brain the size of a peanut". I remember a piece I read, I think in the Guardian, about proposals to outlaw sexual harassment in public, in which the female author objected to attracting the unwanted attentions of construction workers, but didn't mind turning heads in a restaurant. This couldn't be about class at all, could it?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
[...] over the summer which would make gawking at women a crime. To learn more, see my blog posts Incredible New NY Bill Will Make Staring at Women a Crime and Female Reader Has Interesting Perspective on NY Bill to Make Staring at Women a [...]
December 9th, 2007 at 10:28 am
For gender feminists and their ilk, this is just another step in turning America into an official police state. This particular issue therefore actually has little to do with sexuality. It is simply the wish of one group to control another group by curtailing their legal rights.
In order the achieve their true aims, gender feminists must promote the ideology of 'all-women-are-victims.' Feminsts are like any other political group; they are interested in passing legislation that is advantegeous to them, and care little about anyone or anything else. In other words, they're in it for the money and the votes. Once a person realizes this, all discussions about marriage, childcare, sexuality, better relations between the sexes, etc, become pointless. Gender feminists are not interested in improving relations between men and women. They are bascially like the opposite party in a legal battle; they are simply trying to get as much as they can by whatever means necessary.
The true gender feminist plan is as follows:
There is a small, very powerfull group of academic, political, cultural, and business oriented feminists whose primary goals are, 1) to give all women legal access to inexpensive artificial insemination. 2) to allow single mothers to have careers and require the federal government to pay the daycare needs of ALL single women. 3) To strip men of ALL constitutional rights in regards to their relations to women.
In other words, a very powerfull group of feminists wants ALL women to be able to be single mothers, and wants taxpayers to foot the bill, regardless of the mother's financial background. I can just see it now: rows and rows of children at communcal dining hall tables waving their little red books and singing hymns to comrades Greer and Steinem.
I can imagine
December 9th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Poster Artfldgr had interesting comments on the proposed bill:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1085#comment-58412
He noted that the bill targets Bangladeshi and East Indian men whose cars have limo service license plates and who wait for work at each of the stations along 31st street (the street the elevated N and W lines run on) in Manhattan.
Artfldgr reported that the drivers wait on the "OTHER side of the cars, so they are actually more than 10 feet away from the stairs" to the elevated stations.
He noted that "for years they have tried to get rid of the black unmarked cabs that service the area and are not as heavily regulated as the medallion cabs. Each medallion costs about a quarter million to the state, and serves to keep the average person from being able to be a cab owner and make a good living. So large companies have the money and they get to get in on the bidding war to get any medallions that go up for sale. The more they have the larger their company can be. Supporting them is a huge cadre of politicos, and a large number of “certified” mechanics and other things."
December 9th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Judge Rufus Peckham Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
I am envisioning a future where the radical feminist agenda has fully triumphed and women are permitted to walk around in public topless.
= = = = =
They are in NY in state parks BUT if they are riding a bicycle the better have their helmet on or they will get a ticket!
b
December 9th, 2007 at 11:39 am
menscollegeactivist.org Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
...My buddy told me a story about his violent bi-polar wife...and how she would terrorize and assalt him at her leasure!! Well on one particular attack she was on him, choking him, and he wouldn't hit her off.
= = = =
My mother was bi-polar and if your friend’s wife was it was not her fault. He does have the right to defend himself from her attacks but if you are using bi-polar as a synonym for lack of self control and selfish it is in poor taste. I am sure if that is what you have done you did not realize it and your apology is accepted ahead of time. Just a note to everyone out there please be carful of how you use particular words that are meant to describe diseases and do not interchange them with attempting to describe completely self absorbed self indulgent people because you are apt to hurt people who have or know a loved ones that have that particular disease.
b
December 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Lewis Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
And if they gouge our eyes out women would be able to close the pay gap down as men wouldn't be able to work, the Deadbeat Dad crackdown wouldn't have to deny driver's licenses to those who didn't pay child support as they couldn't drive anyway, the children would be safe from abuse as you can't hit what you can't see, rape would go down because men wouldn't be able to see who was asking for it...
= = = =
Nice, VERY nice!
b
December 9th, 2007 at 11:54 am
What implications with this have for the median and tourists with all those cameras and videos out there? No one should be able to use them because if you inadvertently catch the person pictured above you could stare at her any time you want . . . oops Glenn when this law passes you will have to destroy the above picture or be arrested. . .
b
December 9th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I will say it again: Gender feminists are a political group whose sole interest is to pass legislation that is beneficial to them. Nothing else matters.
And by the way, b: men DO NOT have a legal right to protect themselves from attacks against women in this country. Have you ever heard of the VAWA? Do you read the newspaper? What planet are you on?
Oh, and please learn how to piece together a proper sentence.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
"He noted that the bill targets Bangladeshi and East Indian men whose cars have limo service license plates and who wait for work at each of the stations along 31st street (the street the elevated N and W lines run on) in Manhattan."
Correction. The subway stations are in Queens, not Manhattan.