You use that word deserve. Why? Nobody is saying that. Shit happens to everybody, deserving or not. Our point is that this isn't a big fucking deal. It's just part of the shit people put up with living in a society. While qualifying it as "not as bad" you still compare it to rape. That's dumb.

The fact is she probably has it easier than every cat caller in the video. Thin, cis, rich, white woman problems don't rate. Sorry.

My concern about this video comes from a broader context. I'm a shade left of Mao, so I'm poorly represented in politics. Still, I would rather see the dems take the next two cycles. This video is embedded in a context of watching the left overplay their perceived (and previously realized) advantage with women voters. It's a transparent attempt to build momentum for Clinton 2016. People are sick of it. Polls suggest the strategy will cost them dearly in November.

I did watch the video. I didn't hear any threats. Hyperbole gets you nowhere.

There were the two persistent guys. Although I think that had more to do with her acting. They were doing the equivalent of fucking with buckingham palace guards. It was obvious she was doing the silent shtick far beyond what's reasonable. In a real situation that would be diffused with two words, "fuck off."

We describe good etiquette as "classy." Why do you suppose that is?

IMO we should all be forced to acknowledge the riffraff here and there.

Okay, so a suitable answer to your question, "why should she have to?" Is "because assholes exist, and she'd rather not listen to them."

Victim blaming? Really? No crime was committed. These men are well within their rights. You aren't a victim whenever someone does something you'd rather they didn't do. Laws exist to delineate when you are being victimized, and when you are being inconvenienced. Everything in this video falls decidedly into the latter category. Assholes inconvenience me all the time. I don't make a video imploring that we stop assholery. That would be dumb. Assholes won't listen. If they listened, they wouldn't be assholes. I just take reasonable measures to avoid dealing with it. In this case, if she really hates talking to poor people, she could just wear earbuds.

Personally I'd prefer a society without fences or earbuds. The fact is, most of those guys could be pretty cool, if crass as all get out. Personally I don't have a problem with crass. Crass can be funny. It might be offensive, but being offended is merely an inconvenience. Crassness by itself isn't dangerous.

Trance said he doesn't understand why she doesn't. You said why should she have to? Nobody is saying she has to. She might want to if she'd like to avoid hearing other people speak their mind. It's her choice. Similarly, catcalling is their choice. They don't need to be classy if they don't want to.

The Jessica Williams video is better in that it isn't about privileged white cisgendered problems exclusively. However, it also doesn't make the case very well. There isn't any evidence of "Wall Street douches" making catcalls unless you want to talk about a picture of a blurred out face in a suit verbalizing nothing.

The assertion that many men are making is that girls selectively complain about catcalls. Specifically, they only want attention from the men they want attention from, and expect us to read their minds... I'm sorry... Body language... and figure out the difference.

For example, a (female) friend of mine was a teaching assistant at UT. She tells this story about going over a study on gender differences regarding random propositions for sex. As you might expect the results were that men were more likely to say yes, and women no. Big surprise there. Well, once the professor finished, Vince Young raised his hand and said "that's not how it works." Every girl in the room (according to my friend) blushed, giggled, twirled their hair, and "made eyes at him." It seems every girl in the room was ready for proposition from an nfl quarterback... Just not homeless people drinking on the stoop.

@ChaosEngine

Nobody is saying she needs to wear earbuds. She's welcome to tolerate assholes. You seem to be saying there should be stricter limits on their speech.

To me this video suggests a reverse power dynamic. It's about telling lower class folk to be comfortable being ignored by the privileged class. It's about telling them to only speak when spoken to. They should know their place.

It feels like Willie Horton ads all over again. It seeks to instill fear that dark skinned men might rape your white woman at a moments notice. That southern strategy, it gets you eyeballs.

This. The classist element here is palpable. The video even says, "people from all backgrounds." Coulda fooled me. I didn't see any well-to-do folk in there. I'd like to see the counter video where the tall chiseled guy in the suit says hi to random women on the street and we see their reactions. I bet you get quite a few blushing, smiling, tilting their head and tossing/twirling their hair. The reality is that this video is about undesirables with the gall to come up from the sewers.

Where there is a legitimate point comes from inherent physicality differences. Just the other day I turned around in line to find myself about 6 inches from a guy who's got to be 6'8" 325 pounds. I clock in about 6' 230. I'm not used to that feeling. I suddenly realized what it must be like for women all the damn time. Now if some little dude were to comment on my ass, sure, I will engage and laugh it off... But that dude? Even a "hey there" would make me sweat. That said, it's still a reaction rooted in stereotypes.

This brings me to a final point, which is what I'd call a form of sizism. Not the usual fattism, but rather the assumptions that go along with bigger people more generally. Brawny guys, particularly dark skinned brawny guys, are automatically assumed to be dangerous. BNBG, so to speak. While there is some obvious rational basis to this assumption, I think it has gone way to far and negatively impacts the social inclusion of bigger folk. We big folk have to go way overboard with passivity to not be seen as a rapist in waiting. Else, embrace your inner meat head and go cruise the gym scene.

I think he said it in the interview. He's paid to be obnoxious.

You ever try sunfish?

I think it's crazy how huge fish basically serve as ocean habitat. It's like a floating reef.

Who would win in one foot of water?

My frustration is that they don't turn this into a push to write your representative. The few million raised by this campaign are absolutely trounced by seemingly insignificant percentage cuts to the NIH budget. We're talking billions of dollars. Relying on the goodness of people's hearts and distributed contributions will not get it done. Awareness is amazing, but people should be aware of the actual numbers, and how much further just a little action from congress could go. While not all the money will go to ALS necessarily, I promise you it will all go to worthy research. Make your ice bucket challenges a challenge to write congress pleading more funding to be directed towards medical research.

My understanding is that motorcyclists are taught to drive aggressively because it is thought to be safer. That is, on your bike you are safer passing than being passed. I'm not sure I buy the logic though, and these idiots have got to go.

You dismissed as offensive humor targeting the vast majority of relatively inconspicuous gay men. You also suggested that we were "supposed to" interpret the character as straight... As though a normal gay man ought be surprising.

For the record being transgendered in the workplace is a completely different thing. Expressing your gender identity is normal. Expressing your sexuality is inappropriate for the most part.

@scottishmartialarts The trouble I have with your interpretation is that it dismisses the perspective of the gay guy that does just want to be seen as normal. Many gay people feel pressure to conform to an overtly sexual culture born out of a necessity for expression in the face of persecution. The fact is that they'd rather call out overt sexuality as tacky just like any other classy individual. It's your right. You just look dumb... like the tart in the tube top, or the bro waving his dick around. Get it together.

This doesn't really make any sense. You are proposing a ban on coverage of elections?

One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.