In this edition we have an article in response to that viral video that aims to spread awareness of street harassment, or so it may seem. So let's have a look at this persons take on a potentially serious issue.
_____________________________________________________________
http://www.bustle.com/articles/46527-6-things-you-might-not-think-are-harassment-but-definitely-are-because-apparently-we-need-to
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
_____________________________________________________________
6 Things You Might Not Think Are Harassment But Definitely Are (Because Apparently We Need To Clear A Few Things Up)
You know what, I guess 'we', that must be the royal we, do need to clear a few things up, because I always thought that the many internet encyclopedias were terrible at giving out information, and that we should instead be sourcing our information from opinionated blogs like this one, especially when the author doesn't understand title case. According to Wikipedia, what distinguishes harassment is "an action that is meant to or happens to cause discomfort for the victim." So I guess that's the main thing cleared up already, not sure why we need a whole essay about it. This debate came about over a video that recently went viral showing a girl being verbally harassed around the streets of Manhattan by young men. There were admittedly some pretty creepy comments, but the vast majority seemed to be complimentary. In my opinion there were very few that could actually be classed as harassment, with the majority having the simple goal of trying to flatter the girl, something that this author doesn't agree with.
So to try and prove her point she starts with a well known fact. Apparently "women are victims of sexual violence every single day", and of course we get a reliable source to back up this claim. Oh no, we don't, all this tells you is that it's not a factual argument, it's just the opinionated horseshit of one ignorant blogger. Where have I seen that before? Why even in the next paragraph the feminist Steven Hawking claims that women have a sixth sense, which I surprisingly couldn't find anything about on the internet, and it really makes you question whether this article is serious or not. But you know "we hear stories of sexual assault on a near daily basis", which is obvious considering it's the news, and not Countryfile. There's also daily stories about Ebola, but I would like to think I'm intelligent enough to know that that doesn't affect my everyday life, and the event is thankfully very rare, and does not reflect reality. But what does the author suggest we do with this harrowing issue, go back to the middle ages of course. If a man is threatening a women by speaking to her uninvited then logically it can be assumed that he first needs permission to speak with her, which is ludicrous. I would like to think modern society has progressed far enough so that people are freely allowed to speak with each other, but this author seems to be content with just playing lords and ladies.
Now I don't want people to think that I'm completely dismissing this issue, I think harassment is a key issue in modern society, and even some statistics suggest that over half of women are harassed on a weekly basis. I also find myself in a disposition here as I regularly compliment people in the street, whether it be how they look or how much I admire their beard. I'd like to think that this makes them feel good about themselves, but this piece has put me in a catch 22. Surely if I don't compliment people as they haven't invited me to do so, like this author is suggesting, then I will branded an unpleasant person, but then if I do compliment them I'm 'harassing' them, so I can't possibly win. I also don't think my actions should be judged based on one video clip that has been heavily edited, and this to applies to those 'crotch cam' videos aimed at uncovering women. These videos have been commissioned by a harassment charity, and so it's obviously going to be biased. By only seeing about three minutes of a ten hour experiment we can't see what actually happens, and with only one piece of footage there really isn't any point to be made, for all we know it could have been an isolated case.
But to be fair to her there are some valid points in here too, there still not backed up by anything reliable, but at least she's on to something. Her only source, the video, does show some borderline criminal behavior that I would certainly define as harassment, but jumping to conclusions doesn't help her case. You can't just attribute a radical theory to something with one source, and not even a reliable one at that. I could turn the tables on this one and ask her how you can attribute this issue to a whole gender when it doesn't apply to the majority of people in the video? If you watch most of the men in the video you will see they do absolutely nothing, so how can you possibly know it's a gender issue, more likely it's due to the individual. But now I've made a point I need to back it up with evidence, something that the author could learn. In 2014 'Stop Street Harassment' found that 6% of women experienced harassment on a daily basis, that's only 1% more than men surveyed in the same study, and in that one sentence I've already made a more valid point than during the whole of this article. For another view on this I suggest watching the 'Family Guy' episode titled 'Peter-assment', which will give you a much better interpretation of harassment than in this article, and that's coming from a satirical cartoon.
Her final point is just ludicrous. You can see for yourself that the majority of men in the video get the message when she doesn't respond to them, admittedly one or two still pursue, which I admit is a bit creepy, but I'm sure just a simple sentence would have sent them away. After all, if you yell loud enough someone will eventually see what all the fuss is about, even if that happens to be rejection. I just don't like how these comments with good intentions have been blown so wildly out of proportion, and it does seem to be targeted at a minority. Ask yourself this; Are 'The Beatles' harassing women for simply wanting to hold their hand? Is Roy Orbison wrong for commenting on a pretty woman walking down the street? And can we really take an argument seriously with a person who comments "LOL forever" on a serious point. I'm just done after that phrase, it makes me physically sick just looking at it, and at when could that ever be considered appropriate. It's just nice to know that the author enjoys making jokes out of other people's suffering, which is a bit like me I suppose, except I'm not trying to do it whilst making a serious statement.
Irrelevant would be the word I would use to sum up this article, no matter whether you think the author is right or wrong you cannot jump to conclusions when you have no evidence apart from yourself to back it up, which by the way is not a reliable source. At least in my argument I included the one source, which is one more than her. It might not be enough to come to my own conclusions, but it's miles ahead of whatever crap she came out with. Putting causation on extraneous points is not how to formulate an argument, and you end up looking a bit of a moron if you do decide to. How's that dear, I didn't compliment you like you said, but at least I was sincere.
No comments:
Post a Comment