What Is Harassment?

[SoulMonster]

Don't be sexist, be considerate, don't approach someone who obviously don't want the contact, and make an effort to ensure she will enjoy what you have to say. Is that so fucking hard?

As if most people in the thread, including yourself, have made it that simple from the beginning.

It is so obvious I never thought it would ever need to be typed out, you taught me wrong.

[tinyrobot]

You seem very angry.

You seem like a frog ran over by a truck

[magisme]

Everyone has the right to not be harassed. No one has the right not to feel bothered or annoyed.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

I don't know how you separate the two. That was my whole point with the thread. But I hardly think any time we are annoyed by someone we are also harassed by them.

Don't be sexist, be considerate, don't approach someone who obviously don't want the contact, and make an effort to ensure she will enjoy what you have to say. Is that so fucking hard?

As if most people in the thread, including yourself, have made it that simple from the beginning.

It is so obvious I never thought it would ever need to be typed out, you taught me wrong.

Douche-tastic. Nicely done.

[SoulMonster]

Everyone has the right to not be harassed. No one has the right not to feel bothered or annoyed.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

Yeah, these things can't be separated in any meaningful way, especially considering that an action that is merely bothersome to someone might be harassing to others, or when multiplied by many. We can't try to devise rules that would eliminate harassment and not bothering, it is impossible. Besides, as decent human beings we would want to remove both, so in practical terms the solution is the same (see my last post).

Everyone has the right to not be harassed. No one has the right not to feel bothered or annoyed.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

I don't know how you separate the two. That was my whole point with the thread. But I hardly think any time we are annoyed by someone we are also harassed by them.

Don't be sexist, be considerate, don't approach someone who obviously don't want the contact, and make an effort to ensure she will enjoy what you have to say. Is that so fucking hard?

As if most people in the thread, including yourself, have made it that simple from the beginning.

It is so obvious I never thought it would ever need to be typed out, you taught me wrong.

Douche-tastic. Nicely done.

You are ever the teacher.

[Dazey]

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

If that's the definition then there's only one instance of harassment in the OP video. Nothing else would qualify by that logic.

[MB.]

But what if catcalling makes her fearful or anxious, due to past experiences? It's not that simple.

There are certainly two cases of clear harassment btw. Both the guys walking along with her for sure, it would certainly make me feel anxious and threathened.

Edited November 3, 2014 by MB.

[Rustycage]

Everyone has the right to not be harassed. No one has the right not to feel bothered or annoyed.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

I don't know how you separate the two. That was my whole point with the thread. But I hardly think any time we are annoyed by someone we are also harassed by them.

It's definitely an issue with a lot of gray area but surely people do have the right to not be bothered or annoyed. One harmless comment is obviously not harrassment but at the same time if you're(not you personally) following someone and just saying, "hey.....hey......hey......hey.....hey," or just walking with them for no reason than to get in their head, it can be considered harrassment. Some people would say it is ridiculous to call it harrassment but it certainly can be considered.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

If that's the definition then there's only one instance of harassment in the OP video. Nothing else would qualify by that logic.

I count at least two. The guy that walked beside her for 2 minutes and the douche in the red hat. Granted she hasn't told them to back off but does she really have to? Not getting a response should be enough to let those two know that they need to move on.

---------------------------

Going by the video, I don't think any of us would enjoy that barrage of crap. Maybe it's hard to single all of them out but as a whole, I can see why she would feel bothered by it.

[Dazey]

But what if catcalling makes her fearful or anxious, due to past experiences? It's not that simple.

There are certainly two cases of clear harassment btw. Both the guys walking along with her for sure, it would certainly make me feel anxious and threathened.

I'm simply going by the definition quoted above. None of these instances were "systematic" or "continued" other than the guy walking alongside her for five minutes but everybody already agreed that that constituted harassment. If there were two of them then my mistake but that's not 100 is it?

[magisme]

Everyone has the right to not be harassed. No one has the right not to feel bothered or annoyed.

How do you separate the two?

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious

I don't know how you separate the two. That was my whole point with the thread. But I hardly think any time we are annoyed by someone we are also harassed by them.

It's definitely an issue with a lot of gray area but surely people do have the right to not be bothered or annoyed. One harmless comment is obviously not harrassment but at the same time if you're(not you personally) following someone and just saying, "hey.....hey......hey......hey.....hey," or just walking with them for no reason than to get in their head, it can be considered harrassment. Some people would say it is ridiculous to call it harrassment but it certainly can be considered.

I don't think people have the blanket right not to be bothered or annoyed. Too much grey area for me. I completely agree with what you're saying about the specific interactions you've mentioned, though... "hey, hey, hey" or continuing to walk beside someone to get into their head. Yeah, no good. As much as it's comforting for a few people to paint my views as extreme (not talking about you), I'm really quite reasonable about this, if philosophically critical the whole way.

[MB.]

What are you meaning with this Dazey? It's ok to catcall women about her ass, cause it's not legally harassment? It's certainly annoying and doesn't feel good, so is that any better?

And what if the guy does it the whole day to women, does it makes him an harasser?

Edited November 3, 2014 by MB.

[Rustycage]

Just look at what is dealt with on a daily basis through chat rooms, facebook, instagram. You've got freaks creeping on them all of the time and then they walk down the street and they don't know who the guys are, what they may have on their minds. Would you feel completely safe? There doesn't even have to be a history of a sexual assault to be sensitive to that type of behavior. Are all of the encounters harrassment? Obviously not but what if they were around where she was stopping? How persistent would they become?

You might say the video is too dramatic but all she was doing was walking. What if she had stopped to shop.

The Lifetime movie network mindset of all men being scumbags annoys me too but there really are a lot of creeps out there and should women have to be looking over the shoulder at all times while going to the store? While working? While eating? Even while driving? While going home?

Edited November 3, 2014 by Rustycage

[Dazey]

What are you meaning with this Dazey? It's ok to catcall women about her ass, cause it's not legally harassment? It's certainly annoying and doesn't feel good, so is that any better?

Not at all. To be honest I was simply being pedantic with regard to the quoted definition.

And what if the guy does it the whole day to women, does it makes him an harasser?

Well technically yes going strictly by that definition.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Dazey

[Dazey]

What I'm saying is that if I say good morning or hello or even pay a compliment to a stranger then I don't think that that technically constitutes harassment in itself. If I continue to attempt to communicate with them despite it being made clear that my attentions are unwelcome then that's where the line is crossed IMO.

Of course that can vary greatly depending on the person, the scenario or the choice of words used. For instance a pleasant hello, good morning and the like is very different to grabbing your crotch and shouting "Oi love! Get yer tits out and wrap your gums around me plums!"

Edited November 3, 2014 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

I don't think people have the blanket right not to be bothered or annoyed.

I disagree. I see no reason why people shouldn't have that inherent right. I am aware it is a right that will be violated all the time, and that can't really be protected through legality because the grey areans are much larger than for harassment, but I still think it is principly important that it exists. Without that right, people are basically free to bother and annoy people all the way up till harassement, and I don't see much good to come from that. So better to accept that we have a right to not be bothered and annoyed, yet acknowledge the impracticaly of ever enforcing that right particularly efficiently. All in all, this becomes very philosphically now.

Now I am curious to hear why you think people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

Edited November 3, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

What I'm saying is that if I say good morning or hello or even pay a compliment to a stranger then I don't think that that technically constitutes harassment in itself. If I continue to attempt to communicate with them despite it being made clear that my attentions are unwelcome then that's where the line is crossed IMO.

Of course that can vary greatly depending on the person, the scenario or the choice of words used. For instance a pleasant hello, good morning and the like is very different to grabbing your crotch and shouting "Oi love! Get yer tits out and wrap your gums around me plums!"

Obviously there's a difference but you're singling it out to just one instance. During the course of the day(or the walk as this video shows) there are dozens of some harmless and some harrassing comments/behavior, then what? Does she not have the right to be bothered by it?

"Good morning" or "hello" isn't the same as saying, "hey beautiful" or "American Eagle. Mmmm sexy" in reference to a logo on her tits or something. It may seem harmless and may not fit the legal mold of harrassment but dealing with it persistently and as a whole, it's not so simple. I think the video raises that point.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Rustycage

[Dazey]

Now I am curious to hear what people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

I think the point he's making is that some people are bothered and annoyed by pretty much everything.

[magisme]

Now I am curious to hear what people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

I think the point he's making is that some people are bothered and annoyed by pretty much everything.

Also, "right" implies a legal issue, which I think has no place in MOST of this.

[SoulMonster]

Now I am curious to hear what people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

I think the point he's making is that some people are bothered and annoyed by pretty much everything.

Also, "right" implies a legal issue, which I think has no place in MOST of this.

Now I am curious to hear what people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

I think the point he's making is that some people are bothered and annoyed by pretty much everything.

Also, "right" implies a legal issue, which I think has no place in MOST of this.

I like to think of rights as directional principles we build our laws around. We might not always be able to do that for every right, but they are still essential to define the society we strive to achieve.

When I have been talking about the right to not be bothered it was in the context of uninvited contact on the streets.

[Rustycage]

Now I am curious to hear what people shouldn't have a right to not be bothered and annoyed.

I think the point he's making is that some people are bothered and annoyed by pretty much everything.

Also, "right" implies a legal issue, which I think has no place in MOST of this.

When people do have that right in the workplace to not receive most of those comments, why shouldn't they have the same right in a public place or while walking on the sidewalk when they are at more risk of danger?

Maybe they SHOULD have the right to not be barked at sexually when it's so obviously inappropriate? There are plenty of rights people didn't have at some point until it was discussed and addressed.

[magisme]

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

[Dazey]

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

Personally I'm not so sure about the WBC nut jobs. I think a case could be made for incitement to violence in their case.

[magisme]

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

Personally I'm not so sure about the WBC nut jobs. I think a case could be made for incitement to violence in their case.

I don't know enough about them. I'd say something like "God hates fags" = protected but "Kill All Fags" = not.

[Rustycage]

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

I'm living in Kansas right now. Those people aren't as protected legally as you think.

Everyone runs them off from their funeral protests any chance they get. Cops included.

But I don't follow the comparison. A lone woman walking down the road could easily fear for their safety while being treated as a sexual object. How can we say they shouldn't be treated that way at work but it's ok where there's absolutely no safety net?

[Dazey]

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

Personally I'm not so sure about the WBC nut jobs. I think a case could be made for incitement to violence in their case.

I don't know enough about them. I'd say something like "God hates fags" = protected but "Kill All Fags" = not.

I'm talking more about the picketing of soldier's funerals to be honest. Purely from a public safety point of view I'm very surprised that somebody hasn't taken shots at them by now. Edited November 3, 2014 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

I guess it's too tough to call unless you've been forced to exist like an object for everyone else's pleasure whenever you walk out fo the door.

I'm going to go ahead and reject any legal restrictions on free speech in public spaces unless the safety of someone is immediately and clearly at risk. The "God Hates Fags" people are a prime example. They are despicable, but they should have the right to be despicable as long as it doesn't put someone in immediate danger. I'm uncomfortable with much wiggle room there. I feel harassed by your suggestion, Rusty.

Personally I'm not so sure about the WBC nut jobs. I think a case could be made for incitement to violence in their case.

I don't know enough about them. I'd say something like "God hates fags" = protected but "Kill All Fags" = not.

I'm talking more about the picketing of soldier's funerals to be honest. Purely from a public safety point of view I'm very surprised that somebody hasn't taken shots at them by now.

They get what's coming to them eventually and the cops chuckle and act blind.