Both Dana and Adam are quite right, that the self-appointed leadership of the atheism movement have a record that leaves quite a bit to be desired on the equality front. But I would not say they’re as bad as the Christian Right. Behold, Rachel Alexander, responding to the recent catcalling video:
The truth is, catcalls bother feminists because they’re jealous. One of Rush Limbaugh’s 35 Undeniable Truths of Life is that “feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” Feminists are highly critical of women who choose to make a significant effort to look attractive. If they can stop men from complimenting pretty women, they won’t have to observe it and feel pangs of jealousy.
Citing Rush Limbaugh on undeniable truths
is a flag on the play right away. But of course I know many feminists who are conventionally attractive; it’s simply not true that you’re required to look homely to be a feminist. But also, what the hell is wrong with you? Why are you judging people by their appearance anyway?
The other dynamic at play here is feminists want to make men just like women. They don’t want to acknowledge there are differences between the genders; men generally tend to be more aggressive and pursue women.
Your cultural stereotype is not my personal mandate, and no, I have no interest in making people like anyone in particular. They’re individuals. Why do you demand that they conform to your expectations?
The woman in the video had big, long hair, was very curvy and wore a tight shirt and tight jeans. She could have chosen not to dress that way and avoid the attention. It is akin to leaving a dollar bill on the ground and making fun of everyone who tries to pick it up, or baiting a hook then laughing at the fish for biting.
She wore fairly ordinary dark clothing that covered most of her skin, and you make it sound like she was frolicking about in body paint. What’s wrong with long hair? In that, she’s conforming to society’s expectations of how women should wear their hair. She dressed in a way that allowed you to see that she was a woman, but not particularly sexily. Didn’t Ms. Alexander just complain about feminists wanting to make men and women alike? Yet here’s a woman who dressed modestly in a way that made it clear that she was feminine, and now the Christians complain about that.
What will make them happy? A burqa?
Women are money, or a worm on a hook?
Cheer up women, even though you’re nothing more than meat on a hook if you’re really lucky some man will chose you as his semen receptacle./slymepit off
LOL @ her citing Limbaugh’s 35
Undeniable Truthsone-liners.That and no woman leaving her home without a male owner to escort and control her. You know, like dogs.
I want to know why these people think ugly women (but not men) should not have access to mainstream society?
jk, I know it’s because they think the only way women should have access to mainstream society is as a boner pleaser.
Limbaugh has a list of 35 “Undeniable Truths”? Are all of them as obviously deniable as that one? Has he updated them, or are they all the same schtick from twenty years ago?
Probably.
gussnarp, #5
He’s long due for another update. Unlike with most films, his sequels can only get better.
I think it’s safe to assume Shoshana Roberts herself agrees with the point of the video. So Rachel Alexander is saying Shoshana Roberts is jealous of… Shoshana Roberts… ?
reason how does it work again.?
consistency is for heathens?
it is reassuring to see that the world stays the same that the conservative christians are consistent and their positions in other areas , besides god and creation, make no sense either.
uncle frogy
Rush’ undeniable truth #2 is that the USSR is the greatest threat to world peace.
I am looking at my map and I see no USSR. Gosh, Rush.
No. A burqa would make the Christians scream about creeping Sharia. They’d prefer a nun’s habit.
Well, yes, but more to the point, who the fuck gets to dictate whether any woman gets to wear a tight anything? Unless her chosen garment is likely to constrict her throat to the point of asphyxia, I’d say no one. Why should anyone have to avoid wearing clothes that they like in order to dissuade creeps from being creepy?
Marcus, #9
He updated the list in 1994. Truth #2 now reads
I don’t think it was an improvement.
This worm is going to go crawl back under the earth and squirm around amongst the roots, where no one can see it or put it on a hook.
Marcus
Duh, you’re 20+ years too far in the future for Rush. Some people take their time with this whole living business, okay?
I had to go and look up these “Undeniable Truths”. Apparently they date to 1988, but were updated in 1994 (I nailed the 20 years number on a guess), probably because 4 of the first 13 were directly about the USSR, and most of the rest of those were about nuclear weapons. Apparently he claimed the original list was still undeniably true in 1994. Some highlights from the original list:
A little redundant, isn’t it?
Really? So global nuclear stockpiles are the same or greater than they were in 1988?
Oops, you’d think he’d admit he was dead wrong on this one, at least.
Well of course he’d say that.
My favorite from his updated list: I get it, Republicans, you love Reagan, but the greatest president of the twentieth century was named Roosevelt, by any objective measure.
There are a couple of things that are probably true in the lists. But not many.
Too busy formatting and copy pasting and beat to the punch, thanks, Marcus.
I guess that must mean talk radio was established so as to allow unattractive men easier access to the mainstream of society.
Oh yes, the reason I got pissed off when that group of high school aged boys whooped and hollered at my daughter from the sidewalk while making crude hand gestures at her wasn’t because a mob of boys was making her feel very uncomfortable or unsafe, it’s obviously because I was jealous that she was being treated like a blob of meat and not me.
*spits*
Yanno, summer is just ending over where I am, and during the summer there were lots and lots of people who weren’t wearing very much, many of them quite attractive, and many of them were women. Nevertheless, I somehow refrained from hooting, yelling, and generally harassing anyone. Maybe I’m magic.
See, everyone, the way this works is that when I get catcalled and I’m bothered by it, I’m actually just jealous of the people who aren’t being catcalled!
Don’t worry PZ, I’m sure an atheist anti-feminist/MRA will be along shortly to prove you completely wrong on that… It never really fails.
That one could have been straight out of the bro atheist handbook. I wonder if it would give them any pause that they’re inline with religious thinking on this? I doubt it, somehow.
And right there in the quoted comment is an example of Lewis’ law. They believe a woman’s attractiveness does and should play a role in determining their worth and their access to mainstream society.
@Ganner #22:
Yeah that bothered me too.
“You’re just mad ’cause we objectify and harass women we like to look at slightly differently than we objectify and harass women we don’t like to look at” isn’t exactly a glowing endorsement of anti-feminism.
“The truth is, catcalls bother feminists because they’re jealous.”
So the world must be divided into two groups, right?
1 Attractive, non-feminists who are happy to get catcalled.
2. Unattractive, feminists who hate that group 1. gets all the catcalls
Right?
So if even *one* woman gets catcalled and doesn’t like it, your whole theory of Feminism falls apart.
Idiots.
In terms of equal access to education, jobs, or other related positions of authority, yes, we do want to make it so that the women are just like the men. Sadly, this fool means that feminists really want to make men like women by cutting off their reproductive organs, and or forcing men to treat women with equal respect. I am a bit surprised that anyone would seriously cite Mr feminazi himself as an expert on feminism.
Yes, she is clearly a witch. Look at the long pointy nose!
News flash for the terminally clueless. Having a female body is not something we can change. How about you keep your creepy comments and judgement to yourself?
No, walking to my destination is not akin to leaving valuable objects on the ground unattended. Having hair, breasts, and a female derriere really does not make it ok for anyone to harass me or try to pick me up. It’s just so stupid to compare people to loose dollar bills that are just lying there unclaimed. I suppose the same intellect that sees Limbaugh as an authority would tend to equate women with property, and publishes in christianfrothings. Rachel who?
PZ: “But I would not say they’re as bad as the Christian Right.”
Whew! Talk about “faint praise”.
That bar’s set so low it’s subterranean.
The Atheist Thoughtleaders (pbuh) aren’t as bad as the xian right yet. (As far as we know.)
False premise. It doesn’t matter how any woman dresses. There is no “way” to dress that will “avoid the attention.”
Exactly. And as we’ve seen with Peter Boghossian’s recent anti-LGBT pride tweets, they’re gradually moving rightward.
So add Rachel Alexander to the list of people who pretend to be psychic so they can avoid thinking.
I like how they say “allowing unattractive women more power” or whatever as if it’s a bad thing. Even if that were true, I would expect good people to support such a cause! How do these people not value fairness at all?
No.
It’s weird that the commenters on the Christian Post (at least the first bunch) are way more reasonable and call her out on her nonsense.
I’m trying to figure out how this is supposed to be a bad thing. If we stop making it all about their appearance, then by definition, we are going to give unattractive women a leg up. Or as I tell my GOP associates whenever they comment on how much more attractive GOP women supposedly are than Democratic women: “That’s because you don’t care about brains”.
PZ, don’t be ridiculous, the christian fundies do not want woman wearing burkas. They want them wearing heavy woollen ankle length skirts with lots of pleats, no pattern and a drab colour. That should be matched with a voluminous long sleeved blouse (white) buttoned to the neck covered by a dust coat (‘cos, you know, house work). This stylish and seemly ensemble should be topped off with a scarf or shawl that covers the long bound back hair completely. Exposing the face is absolutely not a problem. As long as the woman knows to keep her eyes modestly and respectfully downcast and keeps her mouth shut.
A burqa would have dramatically increased the amount of sexual harassment she was subject to and added religious hatred to the mix. If she’d had short hair she would have gotten anti-gay slurs as well. If she’d dressed as a nun she would have gotten offers to try the opposite of celibacy. And if she’d been “ugly” she’d have gotten cracks about that.
Why do people not see this? These are testable claims. Just find a nun and follow her around. Or ask one. No matter she does, it’s her fault, and that’s the actual problem.
Since we cross-posted:
I used to dress that way, and guys told me they enjoyed a challenge.
The only way women could dress and not attract attention is if they dressed like James Barry
Personally I have always been more attracted to intelligent women because I like talking to them. By the measure of Limp Rushbow Phyllis Schafly must be the most attractive woman ever whereas the following are all feminists because they are unattractive …
Emma Watson,
Angelina Jolie,
Prof Daphna Joel
Audrey Hepburn
Sarah Morgan (MA Phys)
J K Rowling
Anthony K
I don’t think that’s actually the case; rather, I suspect that they’ve always been right-wingers, but it wasn’t as blatant when they were limiting themselves to haranguing theists.
ganner @ 22
Hunh? Lewis’ Law states that the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.
I suspect that they were always as blatant about it as they are now, but now we live in a time where idiocies are recorded for all time and word about the creeps and asses amongst us gets around much more thoroughly than it used to.
R Johnston
That’s probably a part of it as well, yes; in addition to the intentionally public speeches and books and whatnot about how stupid religion and religious people are, we can also see a great deal of what would previously have been personal correspondence and individual conversations, in which they talk about all kinds of other things, and show how little difference there actually is between them and religious fundamentalists.
He updated the list in 1994. Truth #2 now reads
I need to work on this philosophee of empistemology a bit more – the idea of “truth” and “undeniable” seemed timeless to me. Surely an undeniable truth in the past would still be an undeniable truth in the present, or something like that.
I think I maybe thought too hard.
@Dalillama, Schmott Guy #39: I concur. They’re mostly Liberal, in the sense of Classical Liberalism, which broadly refuses to acknowledge structural barriers (especially those that can’t be directly quantified in market economic terms), as it focuses primarily on interactions between individuals, generally failing to account for supra-individual context. So they favor formal, legal equality and have a hard-on for proper decorum between individuals while also being very fond of their extralegal social privileges, which they will venomously defend, to the point of rallying around a guy accused of multiple sexual assaults, with corroboration. Their shift from looking more liberal (in the sense of progressive, as we use it now) to looking more conservative (Liberalism is conservative, it’s been the norm for a while) coincides to some degree with an explosion of mainstream feminist activism that is both combating cultural problems (as opposed to the greater focus on legal issues that has characterized previous waves of mainstream feminist activism) like rape culture and street harassment and highlighting intersectional issues. We thought they were more progressive before because they had been more or less silent about e.g. issues of feminist activism since the Second Wave. I don’t think they’ve become more right-wing, I think we just know more about the Right-wing values they always held (in partial contrast, Hitchens tended to be a bit more open about his bigotries, which in some ways made them easier to account for).
Of course, it remains depressing to see what we thought to be genuine concern for how institutional religion harms women, queer people, ethnic minorities, and children increasingly exposed as likely being cynical political appropriation of the struggles of marginalized groups to use as an anti-religious cudgel. On the plus side, that disillusionment is part of a process of actually working to make things better. I’d urge anyone feeling a sense of betrayal to try to use that as a reminder that you actually always did expect better and as motivation to continue to demand better now. I don’t subscribe to a fatalistic view that the arc of history bends toward justice, but I do think that we have the power to make it bend that way.
Also, in a similar vein, anyone in the USA who hasn’t voted yet should go do so. If you think all the major party candidates are awful (or no different – though for people who depend on public assistance programs to survive or who might become pregnant, there can be some rather important differences, so consider voting in the interest of others if you can’t or won’t vote in your own interest), then vote for yourself or for a third party or Snookie. Just vote for someone: high turnout with a relatively low percentage of votes going to mainline candidates sends a much more powerful message than not voting at all becasue it shows that you’re actually engaged instead of simply apathetic or indifferent.
Rob #35 wrote:
And they even have stores for this…
@Dalillama, 39
Yes, that’s also quite possible.
I was careful not to shake too many hands, but now I’m worried I might have accidentally touched a right-winger when I was at TAM a good half-decade ago. Gross! Conservacooties are the worst!
Sure there is. They could get one of those personal cloaking devices like in the movie Predator.
Also, how low can you go?
ChristineRose (@37). I’m not even going to try to speak for other men, especially ones like that. Hopefully you could see the implied \s at the end of my post
Sastra (@45). Yeah. Those outfits are a bit colourful really. The first place I worked was a research institute that specialised in wheat breeding and baking technology. Once a year or so a local church (more like a cult really), would bring the young girls who were being trained for womanhood in to be shown the important work that was being done to make their lives better. I mean, an hours tour of a lab makes up for a dearth of science education right? I took the clothing description from my memories of that. Eventually the commune collapsed with, surprise surprise allegations of sexual and financial misconduct and police raids uncovering huge caches of weapons and ammunition…
Anthony K, Dalillama, John Horstman–
Penn Jillette, Michael Shermer and Sam Harris have never kept their libertarianism secret. Boghossian probably fits in with them.
This is really short-circuiting my brain.
Is a woman really arguing that non conventionally attractive women should be kept out of mainstream of society!?
Also, I don’t understand the argument that feminist women are ugly, it’s so factually false that… Gaah.
I need to go scrub my brain.
Anything citing Rush Limbaugh favorably is almost guaranteed to be absolute shit. That’s the secret 36th Undeniable Truth of Life.
Yes, and male feminists are just trying to get laid by feminists. Who are so unattractive that no one would want to fuck us. Because that makes so much sense. /s
Trying to understand the reasoning of anti-feminists should only be done in short intervals and at one’s own risk. You’ll get dizzy from all the contradictions.
[quote]It is akin to leaving a dollar bill on the ground and making fun of everyone who tries to pick it up, or baiting a hook then laughing at the fish for biting.[/quote]
“[i]Men are as stupid as fish.[/i]” — Rachel Alexander
I’m a fat, middle-aged woman who habitually walks around in baggy jeans, a loose T-shirt, zero makeup, and with my hair clipped up on my head with a clampie thing. There is NO part of my appearance or demeanor that suggests I want attention, and the closest I come to being “conventionally attractive” is my rather generic northern European features.
Okay, I have a cute little button nose. This is obviously something that some men find irresistible, since I, too, get catcalled. Not as often as the (younger, thinner) woman in the video, but more than enough to boost my ego, I assure you. I’m living proof the “ugly feminazis are just jealous” theory is utter bullshit.
This is ridiculous. I tried to post a comment at the Christian Post with links to stop street harassment and kept getting a message that said ‘comments containing derogatory or sexually explicit words will be blocked by the Christian Post’.
The only thing I wrote was:
I can’t see how that’s derogatory, and I’ve no clue what words are sexually explicit in my comment (my guess is the ‘ass’ in harassment, but if so, that’s fucking pathetic).
Attractiveness is about a lot more than “looks”. I know lots of good looking feminist women. And lots of attractive women (who might be considered plain looking), but their attractiveness is enhanced because of their brains. And I encounter good looking women all the time but never feel the urge to cat call them. I appreciate their beauty in the moment, but since I don’t know them, that’s all there is in passing. If I knew them, who knows whether or not one would find them attractive. And there are women who many – including me – would say were good looking, in the conventional sense, like Sarah Palin, or S.E. Cupp, but who are UNattractive because of what they stand for when they open their mouths. How you “see” someone is affected by a lot of things that have nothing to do with conventional “looks”. If this wasn’t the case, there would be a lot more unattached people, both men and women.
Frankly, I’ve always marvelled at the fact that so many middle aged fat white men (and I worked with them, though no longer) thought they were stud muffins. I used to listen to them and think, “if I were a woman and you propositioned me I’d run like the wind in the other direction”. And women do the opposite. They criticize themselves excessively (generalization, there are exceptions) where such criticisms are not warranted. Socialization is powerful stuff. It exists in a dozen variations, but here’s one example.
When I watched the video of the woman walking the streets in New York I was struck by the fact that there were two categories of cat callers. One group were being typical jerks, and perhaps trying to provoke a response from her, on top of their unwarranted cat calling. But there were some who clearly were commenting as if they were going to make a connection with her and, FSM forbid, pick her up. This treads FAR out in to the land of delusion. How unplugged from reality are these people? Even in the hedonistic and fucked up society of America, the sidewalk is probably the least likely pickup place in the country. Seriously? Aimless dudes hanging on the street corner think they are going to pick up a woman by following her? That just screams class act, doesn’t it. It speaks volumes about how they think about women. They can’t even see the delusion in which they live. To them she’s a bitch, or a ho, and she’s gonna love what they can do for her. They don’t even have a frame of reference in which to place her that would give them the perspective to see how shallow, deluded, and truly misogynistic they are. Fucking amazing that anyone could be so out of touch. But I guess upbringing and environment have a huge effect. And I just can’t get my head around theirs.
So, I just wrote a comment and when I posted it, it vapourized. Is this some quirky shit with the site, or can you no longer say “fuck” in the comments?
I guess it was obliterated by a quirk. It was long. Not bothering to reproduce it.
And yes, I’ve had annoyances with audio ads, scripts freezing the browser, etc, like others who have complained to Ed. Visiting the site now means potentially having to kill the browser session. Not cool.
This reminds me of all the times I’ve been told I should just wear a fake wedding ring, to deter these men from hitting on me all over the place. Because if I can prove I am owned by another man…problem solved! I refuse to do it. I’m not property.
congenital cynic @56:
If that was the case, some threads wouldn’t have many comments.
Tony,
It might be the “ass” in harassment. Some language word filters really are that stupid.
Considering this a rude blog, and fuckwit is common description, I don’t think f*ck is the problem. But sometimes other things you say trips PZ’s spam filter, which must perforce be broad, due to the sheer number of spam he receives.
@barbarienne
I’m the same way; very comfortable, not at all revealing clothing, but although I’m also middle aged, I look very young. Apparently I appeal to many. And every time I try to stand at the bus stop and read my damn book, I have to talk to and deal with some dude. Don’t get me wrong; I know how to deal with it. I used to work in bars. But I would really like to read my book. That’s all.
Even being ‘owned’ by another male doesn’t stop some of them.
rabidwombat: Best thing about being middle aged is having experienced this shit enough to not be flummoxed by it. Shedding the instinct to not offend has been wonderful. The words “go fuck yourself” leap to my lips quite readily now.
I imagine that could be dangerous under certain circumstances, but so far everyone I’ve ever said it to is completely caught off guard. They don’t expect that phrase to come snapping out of someone who looks like me. They have no idea how to react.
You know, reading the response to Alexander’s article actually made me feel much better.
Those Christians are doing a better job at basic compassion than too many atheists, most of the responses don’t even use religion but only human decency.
Jacob Schmidt:
“A woman needs a man like a worm needs a fish” — Rachel Alexander
Isn’t there supposed to be a bicycle?
On the jealousy thing, so just to note the comments under my-country-language-posting of the video were full of “she is so ugly, she should be happy to have anyone compliment her!”
Because of the “not pale, light-haired, blue-eyed enough” thing I guess, she looks a bit like a Roma and our local news comments sections always attract the biggest bigots.
#18, Dalillama:
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from responses to the catcalling video, its that hooting, yelling and general harassment is only natural for guys. On the assumption that you’re a guy, by not engaging in these behaviours, you’re clearly acting in an unnatural way. Possibly you’re a godless sodomite who’s going to hell? I think that’s the only explanation that makes sense.
I know this is a cheap shot (but let’s be honest, they fired first), but it seems to me a great zinger to hit some Stepfordized, anti-feminist right-wing harridan who spouts the whole “feminism was only established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society” thing would be to say, “Then by all logic you should be the most impassioned feminist in the world.”
No, it isn’t nice, but it would be turning their own weaponry against them.
Martin Wagner @ 71:
I’ll pass, thanks.
I’m of the opinion that a sexist tactic doesn’t stop being sexist just because someone I agree with uses it.
Also: pigs, wrestling, mud, you know the drill.
Martin Wagner @ 71
1) I’m disinclined to agree that “no u!” is a great zinger under any circumstance.
2) It isn’t magically not sexist when the target is anti-feminist.
Martin Wagner, no. It’s never a positive to use an innate characteristic as grounds for attack, ultimately conceding they’re right that the not-conventionally-attractive are unworthy of a voice on those grounds alone.
Plenty of ways of attacking their “argument” without using it (quite a few right here, upthread) :-)
e.g. frugaltoque’s 24:
What’s really odd is that as a young boy I always thought this kind of outspoken, brash and manly behaviour was something that I felt I *should* do and *should be like*, but oddly never was. A bit like “Gosh I wish I was big and strong and assertive and had the bravado to make funny sexy jokes and girls! Oh, I’m not, never going to and I don’t like doing that. OK.” It was only much much later that I realised how all this stuff works.
One thing I always noticed was that the messier I looked, the more I got harassed. Roll out of bed on a Saturday morning and run out to the store for some milk in my sweats, my hair all over the place? That’s when I’d get it. It is so obviously a method of aggressively reminding a woman who is out alone in public that anything can happen to her. It’s a method of putting women “in their place.”
@75
I felt the same way, particularly since i always had female friends but everybody around me seemed to consider that very odd as in “you mean you just like hanging out with them? You aren’t trying to make out with them or nothing?”. From observing my male friends and other males around me i could tell that what was expected of me was to acknowledge the existence of female humans only when there was an ulterior motive, if other males agreed that she qualified and to do so in the most socially inept, disrespectful ways. Even though i understood it was stupid and pathetic, as a minor i always felt like not being able to be “one of the dudes” was a failure on my part, because i had no other concept of what to imitate.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned from responses to the catcalling video, its that hooting, yelling and general harassment is only natural for guys.
Has evolutionary psychology weighed in on that point yet? Clearly, catcalling may confer advantage…
In 1986, it was an undeniable truth that Ronald Reagan was the current President of the United States of America. Today, that is less truthy and more deniable.
are Christians really worse than atheists? You could post the same thing on reddit and it would get heavily upvoted by the largely atheist community there.
Rob, @48–No problem, sarcasm fully understood.
Chiming in to agree with =8)-DX at #75 and azhael #77, and the pressure on boys to be jerks can start very early. At my small fundie grade school, the expectation was that boys and girls would have nothing to do with one another – standing in separate lines, playing in different places on the playground – and the boys expected each other to join in harassing the girls (while the adults ignored it as ‘boys will be boys’ of course.) Besides me, only one other kid would actually be decent to girls, and he caught flak from the other boys for having a conversation with a girl without insulting her, for instance. I also saw him refuse to join the other boys in throwing worms at girls, yelling names at them, or stealing their books. He’d just turn his back and ignore the other boys yelling at *him* for it. Not for interfering or ruining their fun – just for refusing to join in.
Myself being genderqueer and aspie, and thus clueless to social pressure, I *did* interfere with the obvious harassment, and I was strong enough to make it stick. That of course made me “the bully” and no kids of any gender would let themselves get caught speaking fairly to me. Including the boy I mention above, who at least had the decency to tell me to my face he was sorry for not being able to talk to me. Most *adults* wouldn’t have done that, much less 9-year-olds.
The girls who were jerks, however, weren’t allowed to get away with yelling or throwing things as their means of harassment, because adults would step in to stop them being “unladylike” if the boys didn’t target them first. A girl being “unladylike” was subject to more punishment from the teachers than the boys would get for harassing her over it.
Toddlers generally get more of a pass for whacking or yanking on each other if they’re male, or if their clothing and hair cues suggest that they’re male. It’s just something very young children do while they’re still figuring out what other people are. But who’s allowed to get away with it, or even have the behavior reinforced by adult approval, starts long before there could be *active* social pressure on little boys to behave aggressively when they wouldn’t have done so spontaneously. I’d guess imitation of how kids see older boys and men behave, to kids who identify as male, would start coming into play around the same time.
anym #70:
In retrospect, at my school, I think that was definitely the implication. Same for girls who weren’t ladylike enough, perhaps with less sodomy.
Once again, Margaret Atwood was right, “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
I want to see a followup to that video.
Next time, have the person with the camera walk up to the guy and ask him what he thought the point was. Two versions: One with the camera obvious, another with a hidden camera.
It would be a potentially enlightening reflection on what society really encourages, or at least what they people think is socially acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZVQn1VKGUs&t=207s — this, vs. following a woman around and saying creepy things to her? Same diff, right?
Not that this subject is funny, but this video about if women catcalled men is pretty hilarious.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/amandaholland/if-women-catcalled-men
If I’m parsing this correctly, they seem to be saying that the woman in the video intentionally made herself attractive so she could be jealous of herself receiving compliments.