« radiohead |
| lord almighty. »
m. leblanc writes about getting it from teenagers. makes me want to punch people.
Posted at 04:53 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b86c69e200e54f0281ed8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference street harassment, across the nation:
That's funny, because I thought she was whining. She'll make a crappy parent and an even better helicopter mom.
She must consider herself pretty fugly for her to make the bullshit claim on it face that she is too old for them to think about her sexually.
She has no idea what hormones are doing to kids at that time of their lives. But she does understand she would like to be violent about it.
You're sort of a violent turd yourself, aren't you?
What makes me want to punch people? How about dog puke green web colors that are unreadable?
October 01, 2007 at 10:23 PM
you know what makes me want to punch people? sexist dickweed anonymous commenters.
belle waring |
October 01, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Hey, Mr Anonymous is here, too.
October 01, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Hey belle waring sexist remarks makes me angry too. Grr. Anon punch!
Except I can't figure out what anon said up above that was sexist?
Since you have a perfectly tuned sexism detector, maybe you can tell us all what anon said above that was sexist?
October 01, 2007 at 11:39 PM
I'm surprised that that kid decided to comment here.
October 02, 2007 at 01:09 AM
John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory in action, exhibit #491,823. Thanks, anon!
October 02, 2007 at 06:13 AM
Funny how the most reliable way to get strangers to show up and call you names on your blog is to write about how much you don't like strangers harassing you.
And who cares about this guy in particular, but in general, the number of commenters that instantly man the barricades for the street harassers and vilify the women who are subject to it is utterly depressing. The status quo is a precious, precious thing to some.
October 02, 2007 at 07:35 AM
It's because Yglesias linked to her. He attracts an awful lot of virulently anti-women commenters.
October 02, 2007 at 08:19 AM
I think by the time a kid is 11 or 12, it's high time (s)he learns respect. And if the parents won't do it, then it's absolutely fine for the rest of us to do so.
Trust me, if my son ever acts like that, there will be hell to pay. But if he did, and if some woman's boyfriend ever beats the crap out of him for pulling a stunt like that, my response to my son would be, "you had it coming...and you are still in deep s--t with me, young man."
October 02, 2007 at 08:20 AM
woah, i just saw this all. dude, anon. wtf. go away. you are so not welcome here.
October 02, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Yeah, Kriston, espousing the view that m. leblanc acted like an violent, empty-headed, solipsistic asshole is tacit proof that one is "virulently" anti-woman.
October 02, 2007 at 08:38 AM
there is a story about elephants in Africa... they transferred five juvenile male elephants to a new reserve hoping they would help increase the population. instead they tore the whole place up, harassed and maimed the females and ran amuck. unsure what to do the rangers transferred three old bulls who promptly whipped the young bulls into shape...
consistently this is a problem that stems from a failure of men to be present for their sons. that is what makes teen boys say whatever they want, lack of reference points. no excuse of course, but the truth.
October 02, 2007 at 08:44 AM
yeah, but what about the adults who do the same or, usually, much worse than those teenagers? how can you deal with them?
October 02, 2007 at 08:46 AM
Noooo, Jamey, you repugnant ingrate, espousing that particular view of yours strives for anti-feminist but achieves something well beyond the mark. I'd say your view falls somewhere between anti-Western and anti-human, and you yourself should fall off this page.
October 02, 2007 at 08:46 AM
Well, I'm happy to go away, but I would appreciate if someone would point out the sexist comments in what I said.
Also, I do need to point out how shocked I am at all of the violence expressed by the so called feminists here, at Matt's and at the first lawyers place.
Really weird -- one would have thought that a bunch of young lawyer types that often claim to be opposed to the war and to violence would know how to deal with common thuggery without having to communicate your inner neandertal desires.
You folks really need some anger management and communications courses.
October 02, 2007 at 10:53 AM
street harassment inspires FEELING of violence - if you were ever the subject of it, you would certainly feel that way, too. but it doesn't mean that we ACT that way. m. leblanc didn't act physically violent, she was merely harsh with her words, and i've never physically or violently responded to a street harasser. but, really do you have a better suggestion? if we shouldn't use harsh words to respond to this sort of stuff, then pray, tell us, what should we do?
October 02, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Why, exactly, do you think we shouldn't we have the right to react angrily when we feel threatened?
October 02, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Well, I thought it was supposed to be the case that the 12 year old was not threatening.
Frequently people make these claims, "I would have punched the next person...". But usually that's not actually true. Actual violence would be inappropriate. Being angry and even having a desire to commite violence- that's reasonable.
Street harassment on a one-time basis is not a good comparison. I'm a guy and I've gotten cat-calls or similar a couple of times from gay men. But it never bothered me b/c I don't have to worry about being viewed strictly as a sex symbol. A guy says something like 'big titties', he's probably trying to reduce the woman to just the titties, which is humiliating. But teenagers can be jerks and often times don't have much respect. I would read that situation as a kid learning of a way to say something mean that also expresses his sexual desire. Which seems different from representing a new low in men-women relations.
October 02, 2007 at 11:50 AM
"Reacting" "angrily" is hardly ever the best response. And the right to do so? It's best characterized by Tom Friedman, "We went over there and told them to suck on this. We could have gone to Saudi Arabia but we went to Iraq. Why? Because we could."
She yelled at a 12 year old, why? Because she could.
Would she have yelled at three 12 year olds?
Would she have yelled at one 16 year old?
A 20 year old?
At one point does she stop her yelling at the assholes and why?
I suspect it's the point where she feels she can no longer threaten them and they can threaten her.
Is she really being brave by confronting the kid? If so, is she being a coward or moral coward by not confronting the others?
Has she really had some sort of positive dialog here, or has she merely played in the same power game that the original asshole did?
Now what do you in response? I don't have a good clue.
I would like to "blame" it on zero tolerance. And blame it on lack of spanking. And blame it on the lack of good fathers and mothers in these kids' lives. And blame it on TV and blame it on rap and blame it on and blame it on and blame it on.
But that would just be blaming.
I honestly don't know what you do with this shit.
(Amy Alkon has an interesting take on this that I don't quite agree with. She photographs these assholes and posts them on her site. Whether they are bigger than she or smaller. She also states flat out, that only a woman can get away with confronting people in this manner. If you're an adult man, you will be expected to suck up the humiliation. (I don't agree with the photographing, because I think she's going to get herself killed. I also vehemently don't agree with the sites that post these things anonymously with no corroboration -- one site showed a picture of a guy asleep on a subway car, showed him so that everyone could get a good look at him, and that told of his crimes -- he was a gawker -- the photograph and the story were all submitted anonymously by a cellphone and the site would not give out the cell number -- that's just abusive of everyone.))
I don't know what the solution is at all, and wish I did.
I honestly think that part of the solution is at the school and implementing more discipline there in terms of what kids can wear and how they can behave. Marks me as an old square.
October 02, 2007 at 12:04 PM
In the meantime you have ludicrous pronouncements from the politically correct that if you disagree with how she handled this you are anti-woman.
October 02, 2007 at 12:08 PM
at the risk of being boring, please refer back to your first comment on this thread and then please quick feigning shock that people consider your approach less than congenial.
mpowell, i don't know if the 12yo was threatening or not; i was not there. abstracting away from this particular case it is certainly true that these interactions are regularly threatening and that anger is a perfectly understandable response. a little more indignation from your side would be welcome, in fact.
October 02, 2007 at 12:42 PM
"Reacting" "angrily" is hardly ever the best response.
right, so...what was your first comment about?
October 02, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I ain't feigning shock. If Belle or Kriston want to call me an asshole or dickweed, all the more power to them. But sexist or anti-woman? That just demeans really misogyny.
One thing I have learned as a member of an "protected" class -- you don't go around with your "protected class" sensor array on high all the time. Never attribute to racism/sexism/...ism what can also be attributed just to plain old assholism.
Simple disagreements on an individual's behavior are not anti-woman or as belle flatly stated, sexist. And since no one has yet pointed to my sexist statements....
And the orig lawyer's statement? "At 25 she is too old for these 12 year olds to be thinking of her sexually?" Does anyone buy that shit? She's either naive, ignorant or purposefully manipulative, but it really taints the rest of her argument. Same with her earlier blog, "98% of men are creeps when they approach women."
She does not come off as someone with a strong sense of reality.
October 02, 2007 at 12:49 PM
She's either naive, ignorant or purposefully manipulative.
Or..she's just making a conclusion you disagree with. Who cares, at the end of the day? The point remains: this is an ugly, all-too-common reality for women today and I think your anger is really bizarrely misdirected at her instead of at what's happening out there. Similarly with your bizarre attack on Catherine with your first post. So lay off, huh?
October 02, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Similarly with your bizarre attack on Catherine with your first post.
i dunno...it does have me rethinking the color scheme here. and my violent turdness.
October 02, 2007 at 01:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.