My tax dollars pay to maintain the streets in this city and I deserve to run down them without being sexually objectified or reduced to my biology.
The video of an actress walking the “ethnic” streets of New York being catcalled, or “harassed” provided you adopt the word unburdened by definition, gave rise to yet another “right,” that of women to not have to endure the sound of undesired male utterances. Most would categorize them as annoying, though some women contend that they cause them to fear . . . something. Like police, women seem to be afraid of everything lately.
But Anna Aldridge, an Austin woman, decided to go to the mattresses over catcalling.
“It’s usually just like ‘Woo hoo!’ or ‘Hey, baby!’ It’s disgusting. It’s horrible. I’ve had guys roll down the window and make these little kissy faces at me,” she said.
And doesn’t she deserve a world where no other person does anything that disgusts her? So she has started a movement to make “street harassment” a crime in Austin, Texas.
I am an avid runner in Austin, Texas and no longer feel that I can safely leave my home, even in broad daylight because of the constant sexual street harassment I encounter. As an active member of the running community, I know that my experience is not isolated. I am asking for your support in making sexual street harassment a crime in Austin through legislation drafted by the Austin City Council.
But a crime? Certainly, catcalling is inappropriate and tacky, and it’s easy to understand why women would find it annoying, but a crime?
Within minutes of leaving my home on Jamestown Drive, several strange men honked their horns, rolled down their windows, and made sexual gestures to me. Again, this was in broad daylight. I was terrified and picked up a jagged rock to carry with me for protection.
Nowhere does Aldridge assert that anyone, ever, has engaged her physically, though she avers that it has happened to unnamed others. There is an awful lot of terror going around these days, but if we’re going to address the cause of terror, it would seem more effective to criminalize those who are promoting fear in women by suggesting rape looms behind every corner. Criminalizing neo-feminism might be a better way to soothe Aldridge’s overly excitable nerves.
But obviously, it would be difficult to catch these criminal catcallers, absent a cop running alongside every woman.
I am proposing a few reasonable options to the City Council that I feel will begin to decrease the occurrence of street harassment incidences in Austin:
Street harassment should be made an offense worthy of a ticket or fine. If the harasser has a criminal history of sexual abuse or assault, it should be worthy of arrest. Almost every runner carries their smartphone with them and can easily access their camera to record and report incidents.
And then?
Businesses in Austin whose employees are caught harassing citizens on the street should be fined and forced to go through a city mandated sexual harassment training course at an additional cost. As a business owner myself, I know that nothing speaks louder than dollars and cents. Firing an employee who is caught harassing will not help the issue. They will just find another position and continue their behavior.
Did you think this was just about some jerks behaving poorly? Oh no. Make their employers pay for their crimes. That’ll show ’em.
It’s not that Austin is likely to take such goofiness seriously, or that the Constitution would allow such repression of free speech. Not that Aldridge would care, as in the clash of feelz, hers are clearly predominant. After all, she’s a taxpayer, and apparently thinks no one else pays taxes as well.
Not that the potential for abuse is off the charts, as she need only point and click, after the fact of the alleged “woo hoo,” of course, because she wouldn’t know someone was going to make a kissy face at her before they actually did. Sweet way to extort a bit of juice from a local business that pissed a woman off, not that any woman would ever do such a thing.
But at a time of issues such as over-criminalization, mass incarceration and deadly encounters with police over trivial issues, whether a missing front license plate or the sale of a loose cigarette, the annoyance over female objectification is of such grave importance as to push these other concerns aside. Indeed, Aldridge puts it up there with racism and the removal of the confederate flag:
As a homeowner, business owner, and taxpayer in the City of Austin, I refuse to accept this behavior any longer. My tax dollars pay to maintain the streets in this city and I deserve to run down them without being sexually objectified or reduced to my biology. I deserve to be protected by the police force when I feel that I am in danger of sexual assault. In 2015 when the confederate flag in down and same-sex marriage is legal nation-wide, it is asinine that a progressive city like Austin, Texas still allows women to be treated like objects of sexual entertainment in their own communities. It is not complimentary and claiming that it is, is excusing and reinforcing the behavior. “Boys will be boys” is not a suitable excuse.
But before you dismiss Aldridge as a paranoid (remember that jagged rock to protect herself from the sound of “woo hoo”?), unduly sensitive, Constitution-hating, self-righteous prig, who thinks that annoying her deserves to be a crime, consider her plea to other women to fill the “empty chair.”
I hope you will sign the petition and share your own personal experiences with street harassment in Austin with the City Council. If you have any ideas about how to make this situation better, please make them heard. It is time to work together to stop this criminal sexual harassment and make our streets safe for all athletes to use.
Don’t be surprised to find women stepping forward, in Austin and elsewhere, each with a sad and terrifying story of their own annoyance, demanding laws to criminalize oafish behaviors that offend them. And don’t be surprised to find receptive legislators who fail to see why creating new crimes won’t buy them love, admiration and re-election. Because this crime must stop!
H/T Patrick Maupin
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“I deserve to be protected by the police force when I feel that I am in danger of sexual assault.” That says everything that needs to be said about her.
She should try italy if she thinks it’s bad here. And frankly if she doesn’t like comments, stay out of the forum. But if she must wade into the real world, she could do as the muslim’s do and wear a burqua. I’m sure nike would be happy to design and manufacture an athletic version once demand rises.
So you’re into Italian shaming? Very problematic.
Well she loved it:
[Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules.]
na-na-na-na don’t be putting words in my mouth. I did not say Italians. I said Italy. Italy != Italian. Non-Italians live in Italy to. And to cover other bases Non-Italian != immigrant. It is perfectly acceptable to shame a nation. And you can do it without shaming a race. I did nothing wrong. I am still PC. And I even did a shout out to the Muslims, so 😛
And I thought I was the Pollyanna. Honestly, I have no idea whether the current council will take this seriously, but the bad voices in my head are already channelling the arguments. For some reason, right now they sound just like Allyson Hannigan in American Pie.
I defer to your Austin-ness.
After reading one of your other posts du jour, I realized that I needed a title, and now you have helpfully provided one — Patrick Maupin, his Austin-ness. Which, considering my dad was born here, I will wear proudly so I can lord it over all the California interlopers. I only hope they will be as deferential as you.
I’m reminded of a news story in Austin that included a quote from a woman (so hippie with an arts store, or somesuch) that basically said “I voted for every park improvement and progressive thing that was ever put on the budget, but now I can’t afford to live in Austin anymore because of the taxes” which tells me that if any place in Texas would go for this, it is Austin.
I’m extremely worried that someday I may not be legally allowed to say “Hello” or “Good day” to a person due to civil and/or criminal repercussions of such speech or even eye movements. To think, it wasn’t even that long ago when a stereotypical person would actually appreciate or at least feign acceptance of our more oafish behaviors. Perhaps it does add up to a death of a thousand catcalls, and I do concede that some of the behavior is mildly atrocious, but that really doesn’t mean that we should outlaw it.
That said, I’ve personally felt very uncomfortable (bordering on the edge of harassment by these neuvo definitions) in my early teenage years, just by being around attractive members of the opposite sex. We should probably lock up those persons and take away their jobs while we’re at this. Don’t forget to also put them in a registry, too, because they could always strike again.
Given that harassment is in the eye of the beholder, your uninvited hello could very well qualify, as could the singularly terrifying “good day.” Maybe they’ll legislate a list of things that can and cannot be said so that guys will know?
A woman is afraid of men making noises and gestures about how much they want to have sex with her. She hasn’t been assaulted, but women being attacked for rejecting men’s advances happens with depressing frequency.
SHG: What an idiot.
A commenter is “extremely worried” that one day he may face punishment for something that no one has ever faced a negative consequence for ever, and for which there is no reason to ever suppose anyone will ever face a negative consequence.
SHG: Right on, man, I hear you.
confusedface.gif
Follow the squiggly lines. They’re called words. It will all make sense eventually. Or not. Remember, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
“but women being attacked for rejecting men’s advances happens with depressing frequency.”
Cite? Can you name a single instance where any woman was ever attacked for rejecting a catcall?
Our host has a policy against even a single link, much less dozens upon dozens of links, so no. But there is a wonderful site out there called “Google” which could help you. I can’t tell you their address, again, because of our hosts no-link policy. I hope you can figure it out.
Cite and link are different. You could offer an example, a name or instance, but you didn’t. No matter, as I have mad google-ju, and can find those dozens upon dozens of links. Except most really don’t actually have much of anything to do with catcalling, though there is a tendency to tie together a plethora of male evils whenever someone harms a woman.
But more importantly, out of the trillions upon trillions of catcalls, the dozens upon dozens of instances where there is harm to a woman, even if only connected by the barest and most attenuated thread, is infinitesimal, a word that has been used with some frequency lately. In any event, the point is that your “depressing frequency” is pretty close to almost never.
Part of the problem is that we hear, with depressing frequency, about all the suffering women endure these days, almost all of it turning out to be less than true. So, you can’t make a claim as you did without substantiation that it’s a significant problem. It’s not.
“Cite and link are different. You could offer an example, a name or instance, but you didn’t.”
Good point, that hadn’t occurred to me. A lot of stories don’t come with names attached, even the ones that appear in media reports, as opposed to personal anecdotes that are tweeted and blogged.
But there is Tyrelle Shaw, who decided to assault four Asian women before killing himself, because he had tried to speak to over 1,500 Asian women in the previous year, and did not get a date with any; there’s Jessie Cervantes, who tried to talk to a woman (8 months pregnant) and was rebuffed, so he threw her to the ground and stabbed her in the abdomen; there’s the unknown man who catcalled Raelynn Vincent from a car, then got out of the car and punched her in the face; there’s Levi Angol-Iddon, who fractured a woman’s skull while she was walking her dog; Nikki Harrison, who broke a glass over a woman’s head in a bar in the UK for refusing his advances; there’s Mark Dorch, who hit on a Detroit woman to no avail, so he shot up the place, killing her and wounding five others; there’s the man who was groping Mary Brandon at the Notting Hill Festival, and when she told him to stop, he punched her in the face (not exactly the same thing, but close); there were the guys who were videorecording a couple women at Rehoboth Beach, DE, and when they asked the guys to stop, one of the men punched the women in the face and head; there’s Allen Derrick, a (now-former) sheriff’s deputy who hit on a woman, was rebuffed, so he tried to arrest her; there’s Vivi, a woman from Singapore who turned down a man in a bar, only to have him throw his drink in her face, then smash the glass in her face; there’s the Detroit man who hit on a woman in a gas station, and after she turned him down, he shot her and the man she was with, killing the man; there’s Christopher Brown, who offered a stranger $40 for sex, and when she said no, he dragged her into an alley, beat her, raped her, stole her purse, and threatened to kill her if she reported it…
… how many of these was i tasked with coming up with? Let me look: “a single instance”? Okay.
(And I don’t know if we want to count Darryl Gillybrand, who kicked a woman in the stomach because she didn’t say thank you after he held the door for her. (I was going to say “pregnant woman” but maybe that’s unfair to poor Darryl, who might not have known she was pregnant.) I know we can’t count the dozens upon dozens of ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands who assault or murder their former girlfriends and wives. Or the guy who beat up his girlfriend after he dreamed she cheated on him. That’s a whole different category of men who resort to violence because they don’t receive the attention from women they feel they’re entitled to.)
Now how many of those involved a man catcalling? Or do you fall into the “any act of violence by a man to a woman” is good for all-purpose proof regardless of the question? Never mind, it speaks for itself.
“Now how many of those involved a man catcalling?”
If the answer to this question is other than 0 (and it is other than 0) then the question is pretty weak. I was told to provide “a single instance.” If you or David wanted the goalposts somewhere else, you or David should have put them somewhere else.
It’s true, some of these examples are not precisely about “catcalling” — a good distinction that shows why you are such an excellent attorney — but all of them involve men accosting women who are strangers and then responding with violence when rebuffed. I didn’t include any examples (and there are many) of male “friends” who want to become more than friends and then commit violence against women when the women decline. I didn’t include exes (and there are many) who assault or murder women or their families. I didn’t include a lot of things.
So no, I pretty obviously don’t “fall into the “any act of violence by a man to a woman” is good for all-purpose proof regardless of the question.” I mean, for those who take care to read the squiggly lines.
Go back to your original assertion, follow it through to this comment, and consider whether you made your point. David asked for some evidence, as you started with nothing to back up a ridiculously grandiose claim. Now you have offered some evidence, but it fails to come anywhere near sustaining your original assertion.
And the other evidence undermines your point, having zero to do with the issue at hand. As a matter of persuasion, that substantially undermines your point rather than helps. When you have to go so flagrantly off track, it demonstrates that you’re shooting blanks.
In other words, you have failed to persuade, and now you’re trying desperately to tweak the fringes to save face. As I’ve already said, your comments are posted and are as persuasive as they are. As for me, you failed miserably to make your point.You’ve played your hand, for better or worse. Sorry. Time to move on.
Once one person’s feelings are hurt, and a special law is crafted to outlaw the behavior that hurt those feelings, there’s no going back. Someone else will be hurt that their feelings aren’t covered in that law, so the outlawed words list will grow, ad infinitum, until we can’t even say “hi” to another human without fear of reprisal. First amendment exceptions for hurt feelings are a very slippery slope.
It’s less complicated than that, unfortunately. There won’t be a word list, as it could never be sufficiently comprehensive and would invite catcallers to circumvent it by using words not on the list. Plus, of course, it would be ridiculously unconstitutional.
So, the description would have to be something along the lines of: “uninvited communication that annoyed, offended, harassed” and whatever undefined words they want to throw in. If you’ll recall, the catcalling video specifically included the “hello,” etc., which, uninvited and based upon the level of feelz of the hearer, is clearly harassing from their frame of reference. The reality has already been spelled out for us, even if L has yet to grasp it.
I grasp it. The only place I part ways with the rest of you is that I’m not willing to take the extra step of saying that just because it is and should be legal, that it must not really be that bad.
I think you are capable of knowing that some legal behavior is awful. I’m not sure why you seem to think this legal behavior is not awful. (Though I have my guesses.)
I don’t like catcalling. I don’t do catcalling. I don’t think others should catcall. I think we would all be better off if people who catcall didn’t.
Whether it’s “awful” or just obnoxious is a matter of semantics. What it is not is “terrifying” when someone says “woo hoo” or makes a kissy face from a moving car. Unless someone is batshit crazy, in which case pretty much anything can be terrifying, because crazy doesn’t need reasons.
Remember, California passed a sexual consent law whose author replied, when asked what a person could do to comply with the law, answered “your guess is as good as mine.”. So no, there probably won’t be a guideline on what you can and can’t say. What good is a law that doesn’t give you the opportunity to crush anyone?
Oooh, can we call it “Scalia’s List” after the council of nine finally decides upon it ten years too late? That’s got certain ring to it.
A man yells a stranger: “Great tits! Let’s fuck!”
A man tells an acquaintance: “Hello.”
A woman exists.
Do you really think it’s hard to find meaningful distinctions between these three things? Maybe they should all be legal, but that doesn’t mean they’re anywhere close to the same thing.
Sigh. So you insist on being dumbass du jour? Write a law prohibiting uninvited speech? Explain how you distinguish lawful speech from unlawful speech for the purpose of legislation the unwanted “Hello, baby” from the “nice butt”? And remember, it has to be real, not I know it when I see it crap.
Have fun.
Follow the squiggly lines, and try real hard to find the ones where I said that we should write a law prohibiting uninvited speech. When you can’t find them, maybe realize that I didn’t say that because I don’t think that.
I’m not saying uninvited speech should be prohibited at all. I’m saying that a normal person ought to be able to notice obvious distinctions between catcalling, polite greeting, and the mere state of existence. I can try to explain it, but I can’t understand it for you.
Since you mention “I know it when I see it crap,” I’ll draw an analogy. If you are against “I know it when I see it crap” in the hardcore pornography department because you’re afraid the power to ban hardcore pornography will also draw in the power to ban the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe, you’re doing okay. If, on the other hand, you are against “I know it when I see it crap” in the hardcore pornography because you’re afraid the power to ban hardcore pornography will also draw in the power to ban the Backyardigans and the act of giving birth, then you’re either delusional, or you’re being willfully obtuse.
You, me, and phroggie agree that it should be legal for a man to explain his most disgusting desires to any woman he sees in the most vulgar terms. Phroggie, however, appears to think that that vile act is in some sense comparable to a woman doing nothing more than existing. And he is extremely worried that he’ll be punished for saying hello to someone. But somehow I’m the dumbass du jour? I guess dumbass is in the eye of the beholder, but it’s always funny to note when you make fun of people who get real worried about nothing at all, and when you sympathize.
That awkward moment when you tell someone they’re not getting something, and they respond by insisting they do even though they don’t. Well, okay then. Your comment is here, and it will be as persuasive as it may be.
I can’t ask for more than that!
This entire post started because of a lady who wants to criminalize speech. That’s what everybody else is discussing. If that’s not what you are discussing, then why are you here?
Or if that is what you’re discussing, then why can’t you stay on topic?
As our illustrious host points out, you can’t easily ban kissy-faces without banning hello, so it, in fact, is a legitimate concern in the context of the article and petition that this blog post is premised on. Phroggie is only discussing the logical ride down the slippery slope once the sled has crested the hill.
Yet if we go there, people will think they can do so equally well after-the-fact when they weren’t there. That always works well.
It’s an exceedingly poor analogy. There’s been a hard enough time litigating over things like Mapplethorpes, which exist independent of context. Speech and kissy-faces are transient things, typically with a lot of context.
Who here has advocated cat-calling or said that it is never bad?
From my perspective, it looks like either (a) you got your feelz hurt; or (b) despite your protestations, you really want to get this sort of law passed, and want to paint everybody here as crazy dissenters.
If it’s (b), fuck off. Yes, I am a crazy dissenter. If it’s (a), go lick your wounds and come back feeling better another day.
Yeah, L has had a particularly bad time following. But L’s usually a pretty good commenter with thoughtful things to say, so give her a break. Everybody is allowed to have a post that sends ’em off the deep end.
To be totally honest, I do actually think that some vulgar speech, when directed toward an unwilling recipient, should be illegal. I would even support the “correct” legislation to accomplish this, as I’ve received and witnessed my fair share of gratuitously creepy pickup lines throughout my years. However, I strongly believe that the mission creep effected from any and all of these potential laws would be impossible to curtail, and would far and away be the greatest evil. In other words, I would rather be sexually objectified and endure the aural equivalent of a root canal, 24x7x365, than weaken the protections provided to each of us by the first amendment.
Hopefully, that help clarify my stance on this matter.
Austin is becoming Californized. If it can happen in Berkeley, it can happen in Austin. Unless “it” is banning BBQ. That’ll never happen. http://www.tmbbq.com/no-rush-limbaugh-austin-isnt-banning-bbq/
I knew Austin wasn’t really Texas anymore, but Californized? Berkeley? If so, BBQ isn’t safe. Nothing is safe. Nothing is sacred.
I think the proper term is “Californicated”.
Yes, but their rules on “environmental pollutants” have all but ceased new openings in the city, and the one place that was grandfathered in can’t do ANY improvements to the property (like increasing it’s seating by building an expansion) or it would lose it’s status and have to cease smoking their meat…
Minor typo: “whether a missing from license plate . . .”
Living in San Francisco, emotional epicenter and truly safe space for the feelz, I’m now terrified that someone is going to see this and think, “great idea, we need to do this here. In fact, let’s start a ‘street harassment offenders registry.’ That’ll do the trick.”
Well, if SF isn’t in the lead, it will surely take up the rear.
SHG,
Your comment includes the single funniest sentence that has ever been written in the English language.
All the best.
RGK
Thanks, Judge. I wondered whether it toed the line or went over, but I decided to take the chance.
I thought it reached around the line.
I see what you did there.
You complain about typos, then use “feelz”? You are a confused individual.
Be fair. Feelz is my word. PK is just being nice to me.
It’s weird how whatever is happening in Texas comes up over and over on this blog.
It’s always the outliers that catch interest, and for better or worse, Texas always seems to be full of outliers.
Texas isn’t called “the national laboratory for bad government” for nothing.
Judging by the usual mission creep of the parasites in power it will start as a ban on hurtful words, progress to banning hurtful gestures and movements, and end up banning the way someone looks at a woman.
“He checked me skeef..” as the South Africans say. Good enough for a bar fight or being arrested to death by the cops.
I like the burqua idea!
“Stare rape” is already a thing.