A month or so ago, after an antiques dealer responded to her comment about a piece of furniture by asking her if she and her female friend “ever made out with each other,” Leah Green of The Guardian decided it was time to try a little gender-reversal experiment: she would use hidden cameras to film her to treat unsuspecting men to the same sort of inappropriate sexual remarks that women get treated to every day, using real life examples collected by the @everydaysexism project.
You can see their reactions in the short video she posted on the Guardian’s website; she discusses her motivations more here.
Many of the men, unaccustomed to this sort of harassment, weren’t exactly sure how to react to her comments. When she asked a bartender for a drink and a lap dance, she had to repeat herself several times before he got her point. When she tried the “have you guys ever made out with each other” line on two older men, they couldn’t quite even process the question at first.
Others got angry. When she yelled “oi, get your asses out” at some construction workers – a gender-swapped version of the classic “show us your tits” — one of the affronted men responded with “you can’t talk to us like that.” And that was essentially the point of the video: no one should be talking to anyone like that.
That point seems to have escaped one angry commenter on the Men’s Rights subreddit going by the name of frankie_q, who spewed forth a well-received virtual manifesto arguing that it’s complaints about cat-calling, not the cat-calling itself, that is the bigger problem. And that the biggest problem of all is that women wear clothes that men consider sexy.
Frankie starts by pointing out that none of the men in the video were dressed like Chippendale dancers (or Donald Trump):
[A]ctivists who point out that on average women are cat-called more than men never admit that on average men tend to dress in very conservative and unrevealing attire compared with women: all of the men featured in the video were dressed in bland, functional clothing. …
The harassed men were not flaunting their flesh, their figures, nor even showing ostentatious displays of wealth, strength or influence (which are things that more often attract women to men than vice-versa). Had these men been wearing tight black leather chaps and shirts, Chippendale tuxedos, hotpants over profile-enhancing push-up underpants; if they were parading their waxed and oiled muscles, or if they were letting their £30,000 Patek Philippe timepieces dangle alluringly from beneath their shirt cuffs, it would have been a much more poignant and valid comparison.
So is Frankie suggesting that all women who get harassed literally dress like strippers? Not quite. He’s suggesting that there’s just not that much difference between what stripper and non-stripper women wear.
[E]ven something as ordinary as a skirt reveals acres more flesh than the equivalent male garment. Almost all women’s clothing is designed to enhance their sexual allure and heighten their sexual power, and this is so normalised that we don’t even notice.
And therefore, women who dress the way women usually do are essentially broadcasting their sexuality to the world and bringing sexual harassment – sorry, sexual attention – upon themselves.
Dress is a form of communication. … A prostitute dressed convincingly as a nun or in dusty overalls would fail to attract many clients, not because nobody desires her services, but because she is not communicating her sexual availability. Conversely, men and women who advertise their desire for sexual attention, whether verbally or through their dress, are wilfully miscommunicating if in truth they desire no such thing.
So should women simply cover themselves up from head to toe?
While I would not advocate for the adoption of burqas in the west, they are a stark and extreme example of how things like cat-calling correlate with appearance. Their use is encouraged in the genuinely patriarchal Arab world by women who wish to evade the attention of men, and by men who perceive immodest dress to be a way for a woman to gain power over them, and while I consider the practice backward, these men and women both have valid points backed up by empirically observable outcomes: dress dowdy, be left alone.
But hey, we don’t need to resort to burqas when we already have pantsuits:
A female office worker in a frumpy pant-suit or a woman running an errand in baggy jeans and a hoodie is as invisible as a man dressed the same way.
And women in baggy or “frumpy” attire are never, ever, ever sexually harassed ever, apparently.
The real problem, in Frankie’s mind, is that women use their sexy sex appeal to have sexy sex power over sex-hungry men. (Women are not as interested in sex, you see, and so are less inclined to lose their minds over men in tiny hotpants.) By dressing sexily, women thus gain an unfair and “unchecked sexual power” over men.
Being sexually desired is a form of power. …
If a person has a strong psychological desire for something, be it a man who desires sex, a woman who desires wealth, an ex-smoker who desires nicotine, a recovering junkie who desires heroin or an infected person who desires a cure, someone who is in possession of the desirable thing has an easy way to manipulate the deprived individual.
So women are basically the drug dealers of the drug … in their pants.
[A] smoker who blows cigarette smoke in the face of an ex-smoker is rightly condemned for frustrating them. A pimp who has an abundant supply of drugs can is considered evil for luring addicts to their ruin. …
But the reasoning that accompanies these kinds of moral judgments does a full 180° turn when the scenario involves a man who is being psychologically controlled through his sexuality. He is afforded none of the sympathy given to the other, comparably manipulated individuals, but worse than that, he is considered an aggressor if he so much as looks at that which he is being tempted with (the “male gaze”, “visual harassment”), never mind if he passes comment or escalates the situation with a romantic advance.
So when a guy yells “show us your tits” at a passing woman, this “romantic advance” is really the fault of the woman for having tits in public. She’s the “morally contemptible party” for displaying herself in front of horny men who are not at that very moment having sex. Don’t blow your tits in men’s faces, ladies!
Oh, but apparently my reaction here is an example of anti-male “empathy apartheid.” In Frankie’s world, sexual harassment is merely a kind of “romantic advance”; the real sexual harassment comes from women wearing makeup and clothes that reveal their female figure.
In a world that treated the male experience with the same empathy and concern as western society treats the female experience, when revealing, figure-hugging clothing, makeup, short skirts and push-up bras are worn in the workplace it would be viewed as sexual harassment, and the women who seek to gain influence through such means would be shamed and reprimanded in the same way as would any other kind of psychological manipulator.
That’s right: women should be “shamed and reprimanded” for making (straight) men think dirty thoughts about women.
I’m pretty sure that most straight men can manage the dirty thoughts all by themselves. Maybe men should be reprimanding their own brains for all the filthy scenarios they keep coming up with.
Thanks to Cloudiah and AgainstMensRights for pointing me to this.
cassandrakitty, I hadn’t heard of that case. What a heart-breaking story and a powerful essay. Thank you for sharing it.
Shiraz, excellent points.
It happened in Melbourne, Auntie Alias. I don’t know how much coverage it had overseas.
There was a peace march organised in the suburb where she was murdered, afterward (late 2012). Some ten thousand people joined in.
This is effin’ hilarious. Dude, saying stuff like “normalised” and “empirically observable” doesn’t make you a smart social scientist any more than it diverts attention from the fact that you think women oppress men with their butts. “The power of boobs compels you”, indeed. One of these days, I’m going to have to try* to read Warren Farrell’s book of bullshit. Because I suspect all of his arguments basically boil down to “men are attracted to women, therefore men are oppressed. Women are not attracted to men, or women, or anything really, and gay men don’t exist, and what about asexual and agender and trans people oh now see what you did you’ve gone and made a mess of my finely divided binary of gender and sexuality”.
As a straight dude, I can guarantee that I’m not rendered a drooling, shaking piece of brain mush when I see women in sexy attire. These guys really need to stop watching childish sitcoms and decide they represent reality.
*The key word being ‘try’.
I want to tell her how hot she is, but she’ll think I’m being sexist. She’s so hot she’s making me sexist. Bitch.
Oh, and forgot to add: Even if I “couldn’t help but catcall” a woman in revealing clothing (or any clothing really, if the real world outside bad comedies is taken into account), then that would be my problem, not the woman’s, and it would be my responsibility to find a way to deal with that particular issue. It is fitting that this guy’s thoughts automatically jumps to burqas, as everything that happens in his mind (or down his pants) is apparently a woman’s fault.
I’m only going by David’s description of the reverse gendered harassment experiment, because I’m lazy, but if the journalist only “cat-called” solo, she’s missed how it’s usually a group activity. Guys are “joking around” as they bully and humiliate women for fun, which is why the more egregious examples in this thread involve male teens. It’s also a way for men to discuss sex, express sexual bravado and titillate each other in very “hetero” way, by turning any random women at hand into the sexual object.
The reddit poster is impressively wrong when he argues that men cat-call in reaction to women being aggressively sexy, since the cat-call dynamic is similar to groups of young men hurling gay, gender or racial slurs and general insults for kicks. Different scenarios, but in the end, it’s just a group of guys harassing people because they’re assholes who think they’re being funny.
As a side note, it seems that in movies and television, a female character is shown to be plucky and sassy by responding to cat-calls with a clever, saucy retort. Our heroine is so self-possessed that she turns the whole thing into sexy banter and shared joked between her and her would-be harassers.
I’m not sure where I was taking that last point because I’ve been drinking and about to go to bed, but I’m throwing it out there anyway.
Anarchonist – if you do read any of Farrrell’s wafflings, make sure you have lots of kitty/cute Furrinati generally videos to hand. From all accounts, you’ll need them!
Brooked – I’d say the point with that is that sexy banter isn’t how it’d turn out. How many women would feel safe enough, never mind comfortable enough, to respond that way, or want to? I would imagine the harassers would make it an excuse to escalate.
I thought men’s eyeballs pop out of their skulls and their irises turn into little hearts when they see a shapely woman, or have cartoons been lying to me since I was a small child?
I hate to be all nitpicky, but the photo being used to illustrate street harassment isn’t what it seems. According to the (now 83) woman in the photo she wasn’t being harassed:
http://www.today.com/id/44182286/ns/today-today_news/t/subject-american-girl-italy-photo-speaks-out/#.U1InaKKwWtY
But that aside, I agree with all the above comments. When I was in my teens I lived in baggy tee shirts, jeans no make up and with my hair tied back, and would get harassed all the time. I even took to wearing big baggy jumpers and cardigans in all weathers to hide my figure.
I’ve also experienced street insults. I’ve been called ‘an ugly piece of shit’ and ‘a dirty shit eater’ by groups of teenage boys. I also had some guy in a group of guys yell ‘You’re fucking ugly!’ when I was on my way to my evening job.
It would seem you cannot win.
I had always thought that picture was staged, but I think the main reason it says harassment to me is 1) one woman, surrounded by strange men focussed on her, and 2) her expression. Craig and Orkin were having a great trip (yay!) but in that photo Craig doesn’t look remotely happy. She looks like she’s trying to get the hell out of there and to me her expression is close to fear or distress.
I’m glad it wasn’t actually a creepy moment, but I would bet the picture goes on being read that way.
Aaaaaand the guy doesn’t know what he is talking about (not much of a surprise). I was catcalled and harassed in such clothing. And I’m fat, not conventionally attractive, never wore make up in my life etc.. :/ Almost as if harassment and looks had very little to do with each other.
I was first catcalled, and flashed, by a guy waving his willy from a nearby hedge, when I was 12. My friend and I were swinging on the swings in our local park. I know exactly what I looked like – a skinny boy, with pudding basin haircut – and I can guess what I was wearing – jeans or dungarees and a T-shirt, maybe a cardigan too.
But my friend and I were calling out to each other so we were identifiably females, and that was apparently enough.
Besides, as has been said, in what possible world does calling a total stranger insults “bitch”, “slut” “ugly skank” etc etc ever result in an invitation to sexytimes?
Ever?
If only that hedge had been plentifully supplied with poison ivy …
@ Will do, thanks! I’ve already borrowed it from my library and read the introduction. I’ve thought about starting a journal of my experiences, just to keep me from tearing the book apart in frustration. Seriously, he’s comparing a girl’s experience of learning history written exclusively from a male perspective to a boy’s experience of there sure being a lot of female teachers in this school, boy howdy! And then (to make this subject matter relevant in the context of this thread) he writes, and I quote:
I just… How do you make a rebuttal of something that makes no fucking sense? This is supposedly a learned man. An academic, even. He’s, like, read books and shit. What justifies this drivel?
And you guessed it, it’s starting to look like the whole book is one big “Citations are for women. Real men don’t need research or competent peer reviewers, they have their arses handy!”
Uggggggh. Thankfully, I can always go back to writing my own thesis when I get fed up with Mr. Females Are Really Running Everything, Let’s Loathe, Ph.D.
@Brooked: I am sorry I had to be the one to tell you this, but it was too late that the connection between BS (Boner Sinusitis) and heart failure was discovered. All men who experienced the symptoms (extreme pressure behind the eyes, iris deformity and lethal heart palpitations) died very quickly and painfully of all the blood in their bodies rushing to the eyes, hearts and boners simultaneously, leaving their lungs, liver, brains and other vital organs to die. Tex Avery and his fellow misandrists thought this was hilarious, and their cartoons are a testament to this.
D’oh! The first quote was @kittehserf. Stupid typing hands and stupid eyes.
‘I’m glad it wasn’t actually a creepy moment, but I would bet the picture goes on being read that way.’
I agree it does look like intimidation, but ever since I read the article about its origins I feel uncomfortable every time I see it.
I think harassers don’t target women they think are attractive, but women they think are vulnerable. Which is why it’s often to women who are alone or with their children. I think that’s why I got less harassment in my thirties when I wore make up, skirts, my hair down and was pretty fit from yoga and swimming every week. But I used to walk with my back straight and feeling pretty confident, I can only remember one instance of someone wolf whistling, and I gave him the finger. When I was in my teens and twenties I would scurry about trying to look invisible and I would get hassled all the time.
Anarchonist – Boner Sinusitis, LOL!
That quote from Warren “Chucklfuck” Farrell – not only does it make no sense, but it sort of presumes lesbians don’t exist, which is par for the course I guess.
sn0rkmaiden – yeah, I’ve never fathomed why I’ve had so little harassment over the years. My style of dress has changed completely and the only time I’ve had moderately frequent Idiot encounters was in my Goth days. Mind you, if some ninny calls you a witch, you’ve already got an advantage ‘cos it says he’s a bit scared of you. Useful, it was: there was one old fool who was Museum Herpes but wouldn’t come near me ‘cos he thought I was a vampire. I didn’t discourage the idea. /OT
Back on track, I’ve wondered if having an “I really don’t give a shit about you and am not even noticing your existence except when you get in my way” vibe had anything to do with my really low rate of being harassed, but I don’t really buy it. Too many women have been targeted because they looked confident, and that threatens the poor menz, and the uppity b**ches have to be put in their place.
It depends on what the individual harasser is hung up on, though, doesn’t it? So one who feels particularly threatened by confident women will harass women who look confident, while another one who really hates fat women will be on the lookout for fat women to harass. There’s nothing about the women that you can pinpoint as the reason they’re being targeted because it’s not really about them, it’s about the insecurities and anger of the man doing the harassing.
Next time an MRA goes on about how an accusation of rape ruins a man’s life, tell them to google the UK football player Ched Evans. Right now he is 2 years into a 5 year sentence for rape and his former football team are visiting him regularly and courting him to come back and play football for them as soon as he gets out. They want him back on the team as soon as possible. I mean who cares that he’s a convicted rapist who will be interacting with young football fans, right?
Meanwhile his victim was doxxed, threatened and driven out of her home town.
Yep, society thinks rape is so bad. Well, as long as we’re clear that men who rape are just fine and it’s the rape victims who report them who are the bad thing. /fury
QFT. So often it’s like a team sport with guys competing to see who can make the woman look most upset & humiliated, thus proving who manly they are. Homophobia, objectification & entitlement all rolled up into one lovely ball of hatefulness.
So much of MRA sexuality is about public performance. Group behavior like catcalling, harrassment, loudly rating women, bragging about notch count, negging, and other assorted forms of appearance policing are all done for the benefit of other straight men. They need to constantly emit signals – “I’m straight I’m straight I’m straight I have conventional taste in women I’m straight” – to reassure themselves and their friends of their alphaness. Bullying and boundary violations are one of those signals, unfortunately.
For an MRA, sex isn’t a private world created in secret collusion with an enthusiastic, willing partner. It’s something conducted in public, in bars and on the street and the subway and the internet. When they’ve “scored” (whether that’s actual sex, or just being in the same vicinity as a woman), the entire world needs to know about it. Otherwise it didn’t count.
It’s so sad. One of the best things about sex is that temporary nobody else in the world exists for a while feeling. I’d almost feel sorry for them if they weren’t so determined to make other people share in their misery.
Ayup.
Love that description!
::snicker:: Even more temporary if one doesn’t remember to lock the children/dogs/cats out.
Tom Meagher makes the point that one of the reasons is that most of Bayley’s previous assaults were against sex workers. If society treated these women with a detectable modicum of respect for their safety, he would have been given more substantial sentences for those convictions and the psychological assessments would have been taken more seriously.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/meagher-the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/5399108