Skip to main content

Making Street Harassment Illegal?

New York is considering a bill that, essentially, would make it illegal for construction workers (among others) to whistle at women walking down the street. I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the idea. But I'm a dude, and I don't really ever have to deal with this:

in its less extreme, and probably more common forms, street harassment takes a seemingly innocuous tone -- "smile, beautiful," or "hello, gorgeous," comments I'm willing to bet nearly every city-dwelling woman has heard. That tone, which in a normal situation could be taken as complimentary, might lead some to misunderstand the point, as they do in the video above. Some of those interviewed wondered whether some women enjoy being talked to on the street, and regard it as a pick-me-up on a bad day. But it's less about whether anyone enjoys it, and why; it's that men who shout at women, regardless of what they say, are claiming public territory in a way that asserts control. I've lived in many different neighborhoods in New York and now live in D.C., where I regularly run along city streets, and I've heard the full range of talk from men. The fact of it -- and the fact that being shouted at by men is not a possibility but a certainty -- is inherently hostile and all seems designed, unconsciously or not, to make me feel not as though these men want to talk to me but that they have a right to.

I used the construction worker example, incidentally, because I'd seen the stereotype depicted for years on TV and in movies. It wasn't until I moved to Philadelphia, though, that I actually witnessed construction workers calling out to attractive women passing by on the streets. I confess: I don't get it. Do these guys think that's actually a way to get laid? (I have the same question about Brett Favre sending pictures of his penis to an attractive woman?) Two possibilities exist: They do think it'll help them get laid, in which case they're just stupid. Or they don't think so, and they really are just harassing women in a public space. If that's the case, what's to be done? I'm not inclined to criminalize every uncomfortable interaction in the public sphere, but this is ridiculous.


Anonymous said…
Are they kidding? Let's just criminalize everything and make laws saying what IS legal. It would take less time and be a shorter list.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…