So you get a kick out of women using violence to shut a man up when he says something they don't like? You and Sean Connery should hang out sometime, although even he doesn't advocate violence when someone looks at you in a way you don't like.

http://feministing.com/archives/006119.html

oh fucking please. it's clearly a statement against street harassment. and yeah, if one more guy rubs up on me in the subway or leans over and whispers in my ear that he wants to eat my pussy than i think i will use violence.

i completely despite comments like yours, noname, because they are so transparent.

I love this. Having taught self defense in Germany I can tell you that when the fraulein(sp.?)get into something they get into it big time. Nothing superficial. This is great: should be a tee shirt.

I agree with noname here!

While I don't think that it was you Jessica who said this, in the Sean Connery Thread a lot of posters condemned all violence against men or women that wasn't self defense and it still stands here.....

Honestly I wouldn't use violence against a harrasser because I can't claim self defense and because I am not confident that I could defend my self against a counter attack (which could well be much worse than that originally given).

germany isnt america, noname and chem_fem. the differances are worth noting when talking of this sort of thing

Oh but Chem_fem you can claim self defense. In the Sean Connery thread EG said and I like to quote her here "any man who touched or grabbed me without my consent was doing the equivalent of hitting first, and that I had every right to defend myself physically from such unwelcome advances". If someone grabs my ass, they are physically violating my personal space, I can and will claim self defense.

electrodot I'm not american. I'm not even saying it should be taken down, but I am saying that I don't agree with violence in this sense.

Sojourner I must not have made myself as clear as I wanted to, sorry. I was reffering to the staring and talking rubbish more than groping. Groping is an attack and is much more different to the above. I should have stated that clearly.

Oh boy! Free beer!

Seems to me that saying that violence as an answer to verbal harrassment is pretty hypocritical, since if the genders reversed I highly doubt anyone here would be singing the same tune.

Obviously groping is not simply verbal. Excalating violence is also hypocritical however, since if men started hitting back everytime a woman slapped them without provocation, again, I doubt anyone here would be supportive. Can you imagine the latest romantic comedy where Melanie Griffith slaps the lead male for being late, and he hauls back and punches her in the face in return? Just isn't going to happen.

I fail to see how violence is a solution to any problem where one's life is not in danger.

SLAP!

i took it as tongue in cheek-ish. it just seems ridiculous to find something wrong with it when men have been doing this shit with no consequence for...ever pretty much.

"Can you imagine the latest romantic comedy where Melanie Griffith slaps the lead male for being late, and he hauls back and punches her in the face in return?"

and what does that have to do with groping and harrassment?

"and what does that have to do with groping and harrassment?"

Did you read the rest of the comment?

It was an example, to help you visualize what it would be like if men started doing the same things that women are being encouraged to do here.

Women are being incouraged to escalate 'violence'. What if it did not stop there? What makes you think that if you haul off and slap someone that they won't just hand it back? What would you do if the 250 pound man who you just slapped punched you back?

Well, once you regained conscousness that is.

Violence is not a good answer here. A police whistle would work, a good loud scream, an airhorn, there are lots of things you could do that would not escalate violence but would deter unwanted advances.

I think it is poor advice to women to hit people who annoy them, it is stupid advice to tell women to hit people who probably out weight them by 100 pounds.

"and what does that have to do with groping and harrassment?"

Did you read the rest of the comment?

It was an example, to help you visualize what it would be like if men started doing the same things that women are being encouraged to do here.

Women are being incouraged to escalate 'violence'. What if it did not stop there? What makes you think that if you haul off and slap someone that they won't just hand it back? What would you do if the 250 pound man who you just slapped punched you back?

Well, once you regained conscousness that is.

Violence is not a good answer here. A police whistle would work, a good loud scream, an airhorn, there are lots of things you could do that would not escalate violence but would deter unwanted advances.

I think it is poor advice to women to hit people who annoy them; it is stupid advice to tell women to hit people who probably out weight them by 100 pounds.

yep, i read it. still dont see what a woman hitting a man because he was late has to do with a woman hitting a man because he was harrassing her.

i give women more credit than they just do whatever a random poster on a wall tells them to do. obviously women are going to asses there own situations and do as they see fit. i dont think most women are stupid enough to start a physical fight they know they cant handle. i thought the poster was not very serious, and was mostly a warning to men to expect a consequence for their actions, not a guideline for women what to do if your harrassed.

The assumption behind your comment,, JenK, that hitting a man who has grabbed my ass or my breasts is "escalating violence" is that hitting is somehow worse than initial sexual assault. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, that's meeting violence with appopriate violence. Hauling out a gun and blowing his head off, while a satisfying fantasy, would be escalating. Grabbing his balls and twisting? Nah. That's just good for the goose, good for the gander.

Now, as to the argument that women shouldn't defend themselves from such assault because...then men might hit them harder? Do you seriously mean to suggest that women need to suck it up and accept hostile personal incursions and live their lives in fear? I doubt that your average subway groper is going to lay me out during rush hour, to be honest, but if he did, at least I'd have witnesses and the violence behind this kind of assault would be laid bare.

“Obviously groping is not simply verbal. Excalating violence is also hypocritical however, since if men started hitting back everytime a woman slapped them without provocation, again, I doubt anyone here would be supportive.�

Self defense is not escalating violence. Maybe you have never been groped; maybe you are not a woman. Maybe you like to turn your other cheek. I don’t! And there isn’t anything hypocritical about it. I have been groped. Many times, actually. Sometimes I went home crying. Sometimes I went home and took a shower cuz I felt dirty. Sometimes I yelled. If I yelled, people looked at me funny as though saying “She must have been asking for it�. No one came to my help. There was no police around either. One time another girl came to my aid, yelling at the asshole. One time I hit. And I am proud of it too.

I don’t know any women who slap men w/o provocation. I don’t hang out with those kinds of people. Anyways, there is a world of difference between a woman slapping a man and men harassing women. Sexual harassment of women by men is a serious problem everywhere in the world. Men being slapped by women isn’t. They have been doing it for ever as elektrodot said. They have used it to intimidate us, to force us into our kitchens. How many men do you know that are scared to walk down the street cuz some random woman might slap them?

Excalating violence is also hypocritical however, since if men started hitting back everytime a woman slapped them without provocation, again, I doubt anyone here would be supportive.

I think the key phrase here is without provocation.
Groping someone falls under the heading of sexual assault if I'm not mistaken, and I think any form of assault is ample provocation for a self-defense response.

That said, I personally would be more likely to respond to a groper by, say, loudly announcing to the bar/subway car/whatever at large something to the effect of, 'Hey! I don't know this guy, and yet he just grabbed my ass! What a pathetic ****head!' Gropers seem to expect a humiliated silence, so this response is nicely unexpected. It also has the benefit of informing anyone else around of the situation so any attempts at violence or additional groping are more likely to be witnessed and/or prevented. Doesn't work if you're alone with them, though...so in that case, a slap might be in order--although I'm inclined to agree with chem_fem that one shouldn't be the first to cross the violence threshold unless you're confident you can defend yourself if the other person responds in kind.

You have a gift for the biting turn of phrase, sojourner!

"How many men do you know that are scared to walk down the street cuz some random woman might slap them?"

Heh. That would be...kind of cool, wouldn't it? Maybe then we'd see a slew of commentators saying things like "Well, he knew he was walking alone at night, what did he expect?" or "Women's natural urges to slap are programmed by years of evolution," or "Men should stay indoors and avoid showing any skin on their faces for their own protection, so that women aren't tempted to slap them."

Maybe not.

Jessica - I should note that I have no problem when a woman hits a man who gropes her. A knee to the groin is probably called for as well. I only object to escalating a comment, or even a “stare�, into violence. I also find it strange that when Connery talks about hitting a woman because he doesn't like what she is saying, it is a travesty, yet when the roles are reversed it is presented as cheeky, good fun.

I am also curious as to how my previous comment was “transparent�. What, exactly, does it reveal?

I'm with EG.

The line is crossed the moment it turns--or looks like turning--physical. Connery's casual violence was directed at lippy women.

And bluntly, escalation, schmeshcalation. Girls pulling guns on gropers would be a good thing. The reason I can't support it is my expectation that if gunplay became an acceptable response to unwelcome foreplay, it would render a polite but firm 'Piss Off' inaudible.

Open question: Does "throwing a drink in someone's face" count as violence? I've been out of the dating scene a long time, and I'm not up on these nuances.

noname, sorry if i was snippy, i'm not in a great mood today. i was just waiting for someone to comment about women doing violence to men because it's the predictable response when women talk about defending themselves.

of course i don't think violence is an acceptable answer to staring, but i really don't think that's what this poster is promoting. it seems clear to me that it's cheeky and focusing a larger issue of women responding to male harassment, not issuing specific remedies for specific situations.

Small digression (and dissent from Jessica's tastes - the other images she's put up have been pretty good).

That's a really badly designed poster. Too much text (in three fonts, no less), too many colors, ambiguous graphic.

I tried to send an e-mail to Kathleen at Hollaback, but for some reason it didn't go. What I want to tell her, and you all too, is that there are self defense techniques that anyone can use and are often taught in "self defense for women" classes, which are very effective, so effective that they should not be used for any but really offensive offenses, and which can easily be used by little women against big men. Anyone who is up against this kind of harrassment should learn them. Yes, let them be afraid of us! We've been afraid of them entirely too long.

"of course i don't think violence is an acceptable answer to staring, but i really don't think that's what this poster is promoting."

I dunno 'bout that.

"If you stupidly stare at a woman...you might be hit in the face."

seems to contradict your position.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this relates to Connery like this:

Man: Nice tits. I bet your pussy is just as nice. Wanna show it to me?
Woman: Who the FUCK do you think you are to talk to me like that?!
Man then hauls off and slaps Woman for being "lippy."

If some guy was openly staring at you, making dirty comments, and generally freaking you out on, say, a crowded subway where you couldn't move, you wouldn't have a desperate desire to push him away?

Personally, I wouldn't hit a man if he verbally harassed me, because if I reach out and slap him, he has a way of grabbing onto my arm. But I have wanted to do it.

Yes, RM, but there's tone to be considered as well.

"Yes, RM, but there's tone to be considered as well."

You better watch your tone or I'll smack ya one!

RagingModerate -

keep in mind that the text is german, and have a look at the sentence's structure. There are three provocations, and three responses. The idea (I think) is to express a parity between the provocations and responses. Thus the "hit your face" is in response to the "touch her".

Another translation might have captured that subtlety better by making the pairing more explicit.

Jessica – Thank you, but there was no need to apologize. While mine was the obvious response, and I knew it would get a reaction, I still think it has merit. I could change it around a bit, though. What would happen if a heterosexual man hit a homosexual man because he thought he was leering, or because he didn’t like what he said? Would we call that self defense from (perceived) harassment, or would we call it gay-bashing?

Paul G. Brown - Good point about the translation and sentence structure. These could be put together in order:

If you stupidly stare at a woman… she might insult you loudly.

If you talk rubbish [harass?] her… a glass of beer [may be] emptied over you.

If you touch [grope?] her… you might be hit in the face.

I don’t know if this is the correct way to read this, but if it is than it seems much more reasonable. As currently translated in the original post, however, I find it highly problematic.

Hey EG! Thanks :-)
I grew up in Tehran where street harassment is prevalent. These recent posts brought it all back to me and I got a bit fired up.

older and better:

Yeah, I took the RAD (Rape Aggression Defense) classes, and they were awesome. They taught me that leverage is just as important as power. And it's more than just 50 ways to kick a guy in the groin. If anyone wants to take the class, I was told that police stations usually offer it (also, once you pass, you get a certificate that allows you to take it anywhere else for free, plus a nifty handbook).

The most empowering moment of the class was the graduation, where two big guys padded up and we went through three basic scenerios, and I had to fight them off and escape. I was so nervous about it, but it was totally worth it!

This poster is fabulous. It reminds me of the womyn at UCBerkeley who went all around the campus and the surrounding neighborhoods putting up notices from the 'Berkeley Police Department' announcing a mandatory curfew at 10pm for all men - due to the unacceptable level of rapes in the area. Y was lucky enough to see what must have been the last remaining one of these, years after they were put up. It was sweet...very official looking. How about we all embark on similar posterings?

Frottage is an offence that is so common, yet we often practice denial when we experience it, or hear of it. (It's just so crowded, he didn't mean to ...) Vervain's practice has worked for me again and again. Once after some dick rubbed itself against my butt at a huge public library, Y followed him all around, shouting and pointing at him: This idiot just ...blah blah blah...until he finally left the building. When you perform this kind of public service, you will most likely get the reaction sojourner describes. (What's wrong with that crazy bitch?) In fact, during the library incident as the perp got close to the front door where the security guard was, the guard became very interested in me.

You will be a lot more confident using this verbal defense method if you follow older and better's advice to bone up (ha ha) on lethal self defense techniques. Y got mine from Jaye Spiro who belongs to the National Women's Martial Arts Federation where they give you info about self defense classes. She taught me how to pop someone's eyes out in a second. Y figure this is a good first strategy if it gets physical, since the perp will immediately forget all about you AND won't be able to identify you in a line-up. Because you know how it will come down: "That crazy bitch attacked me while I was just standing there..."

The line is crossed the moment it turns--or looks like turning--physical. Connery's casual violence was directed at lippy women.

Also, unwanted stares or comments are a violation. Wives talking back to Connery are not necessarily a violation but a disagreement. Oftentimes, women "nagging" are right and men don't want to hear it. I'm thinking about my mom and dad. She nags for a reason and on a very deep level, she is mostly right. Hitting a woman in this case is not self-defense but domestic violence.

Or alot of Americans will call Pelosi and Hillary Clinton's suggestions "nagging" but in the face of the Bush administration actions they will be actually be right. There would be no need to hit anyone in this situation. Their suggestions would not be considered violations and men hitting back would not be self-defense.

Fuckwit trolls notwithstanding, this poster is teh roxx0r. "Stupidly staring" is an act of violence and of domination; it's meant to violate, intimidate and dehumanize the women being fixed with the stare, which is why women react to it as doing precisely those things. Verbal and physical assualt are, of course, even more extreme examples of the same violence. The message the man staring at the women is sending is, "You are just here for me to look at, for my sexual pleasure." It's the first step towards rape; it's on the same spectrum of sexual violence. It would be meaningless if the entire society didn't back it up, if we didn't live in a country where one in four women are raped.

And if one in four men were raped by homosexual men, you can be damned sure that straight men would doing more than throwing beer on men who tried to sexually intimidate them.

When a man tries to intimidate or humiliate a women, whether it's through stares, words, or groping, he is the aggressor, and should be stopped, yes, by any means necessary. Many times it may be impractical or imprudent to do so using violence, but that doesn't change the principle involved one whit. Women shouldn't confused or hestitant about this for a second. I just wish I could make this point better and more clearly.

In other words, it's the patriarchy, stupid. For those who whine:

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Boo fucking...

I think a slightly better translation of the header is:

"Warning! Women defend themselves!"

Onto the general topic, Heraclitus sums it up quite nicely, though I'm the kind of person that has an allergic reaction to the phrase "by any means necessary". Please don't stick people full of knives for leering, even if you can get away with it (though I admit that this just had me howling in sick laughter).

noname:

There's a power discrepancy issue at the heart of this matter: it's a little bit different for a man who outmasses a woman by 50% and has a longer reach, bigger muscles, and potentially better training (both social and physical) to slap a woman who catcalls him than it is for the lightweight woman to do the same. When the person in the inferior combat position does it, it's an expression of social disapproval. When the person in the dominant position does it, it's... well, domination.

RM:

C'mon, be serious. That's egregious selective quoting you're using there. The poster lists three levels of increasing aggression, and three levels of increasing response. Quoting the first and least of the threats and the last and greatest of the responses against each other by cutting out everything in between makes for a facepalmingly awful argument.

That said...

More misc. thoughts on topics by JenK and older and better:

Although I won't justify it on looks alone, I'll readily agree that verbal aggression paired with physical proximity generates a sufficient threat to warrant physical self defense (your local laws may disagree, however, so find out in advance or be prepared to spin a convincing sob story in court). I don't advise escalation to violence from the inferior combat position simply because you're relying on good old-fashioned chauvinism to keep you safe — in general, the man won't strike back. If this social restriction breaks... well, you enter combat from an inferior position.

And increased personal combat skills, while I heartily endorse acquiring them on general principle, are not something you want to fall back on regularly either unless you can demonstrate in a court that there was a credible threat. It serves you poorly to send a man to the hospital for reaching out to grope you only to have him take your house afterwards.

I do really like the public humiliation angle, depending on the environment; again, you are relying on social pressure to prevent the man escalating to violence. At least with this it's more likely to be safe, though I still worry a little bit about the HollaBack project; people get quite irrational when they see cameras nowadays.

But that's what martial arts training gets you, if you're willing to spend the years to get good at it — it's so that when you make a stand for yourself, you aren't just bluffing, and I think there's significant social value in creating at least a worry in the back of people's heads that the mass advantage might not save them from an ass-kicking if they decide to make their intimidation physical.

I have to chime back in: I'm a 20 year women's self defense trainer who brought the Model Mugging / Impact program to the East Coast back in 1986. I am also a Black Belt Hall of Fame recipient, a former trauma psychotherapist and I've had my own close encounters of the wrong kind. I'm five feet tall (on a good hair day) and I have fought back, and once busted a guy's hand when he wouldn't take NO for an answer and tried to maul me yet again. (I was 20; I'm now 51.) So I know a thing or two about this slice of life and all things self defense.

The reason I love this German Poster (I too didn't take it entirely literally) is because it clearly, unabashedly embodies "the spirit of reversal" - a technical ground-fighting term but more importantly it denotes a spirit of "About Face," of turning the tables, of undoing eons of female conditoning and domestication. This spirit and mindset is essential to embody in order to be effective in self defense regardless of the level: be it attitude or body langauge, verbal defense, boundary setting, or physical defense (counterattack, really) which is, of course, always a last resort. (The goal is to facilitate escape; not fight "male to male" combat style.)

Legally speaking, if a pig's filthy words are spoken in a way that instills real fear, or is accompanied by aggressive behavior (say, sucky animal noises or words are followed by unecessary movement toward you that makes you fearful of imminent assault) you may well be within your right to (pre-emptively) crack him.

On that note, I don't advocate slaps, esp. if you have no self defense training; most men WILL go off if slapped in the face. Rather, a two-handed monster shove to the intruder's chest (not a strike, but to create physical distance and establish a boundary just in case) followed by strong words, and or shaming, could do the trick.

Not that I'm morally against slamming assholes who degrade women... but as others have pointed out it's not kosher legally or ethically. (Too bad.)

If you MUST go physical, you must go one hundred percent. Not like a kitten, like a "junkayrd bitch." (my term.)

I guess we all have skins thicker than others. A grope on the butt is not life threatening, it may be really annoying, but not something which can in any way be rape or sexual assault in my mind. I have seen many women in bars groping men's butts, would you encourage those men who have been 'sexually assaulted' to slap those women?

A verbal coment on a bus is also not sexual assault. This is watering down the meaning of sexual assault until it might as well be called peanut butter for all the word is worth. All this sort of retoric serves is to devalue the experience of men and women who have truly been raped or sexually assaulted.

Wow, I guess some perspective would be a good thing here.

You know the only difference between verbal harassment and a good pick up line is how cute is the man delivering it.

oh wont all of you PLEASE think of the men?! c'mon ladies, men get harrassed too! its exactly the same and just as prevelant as when women get harrassed, honest!

and a grope on the butt is not sexual assault?? what planet do you live on? i mean really, i think even law says that it is.

Oh yeah. All those poor guys who get their asses touched by women in bars...

As for the meaning of "sexual assault" I guess I have to wait until a dick has entered my vagina or other orifices to know that I being sexually assaulted. Or does a finger suffice?

Oh, and I don't know what bars you go to. Are you a woman at all or just a troll?

elektrodot - you summarized my argument before I had even finished typing it. Damn, you're good! ;)

JenK -
Groping is sexual assault, by definition, whether you agree with it or not. No one who has called it that here is being hyperbolic. (I'd put in a link here but I can't remember the HTML to do it. Try Googling it.)
No one is arguing that an uninvited ass-grab is anywhere near as bad as being severely beaten or raped, either, so let's set that strawman aside as well. As for women sexually assaulting men, I don't see anyone here saying that's all cool, either. If you're violating someone's personal space uninvited, you're treading on ethically (and in most cases, legally) dodgy ground, regardless of sex. The women you've witnessed groping men are just as wrong as men who grope women.
As for men not hitting back when groped, here's my theory on why:
Odds are that men don't feel intimidated by a woman groping them in the same way a woman might feel intimidated if the roles were reversed. So that's a factor. Men are socialized to fight back physically when they feel threatened. If they're not feeling threatened, fighting back physically isn't the correct response. I think a good illustration of this is the fact that men will frequently respond violently to another man groping them--because another man is a more threatening aggressor than a woman. However, just because they don't feel as threatened by a woman groping them doesn't mean they're not uncomfortable having their genitals pawed at, or that they have any less right to have their personal space respected than a woman does. Personally I suspect the reason men are less likely to protest (either verbally or with a slap) when a woman gropes them is not because they particularly *enjoy* being groped, but because our society tells them they should enjoy it--men are always up for a fuck, right? [/sarcasm]--so a protest would seem, well, unmanly, and probably earn a man a lot of ribbing from his male friends. Honestly, anyone who argues that "men don't mind when women grope them" just because they're allowed to get away with it is essentially also saying that any woman who is too shocked or embarrassed to respond when she gets groped doesn't mind either. And we know that's bullshit. Silence is not consent, and groping (aka sexual assault) is not okay, regardless of who is groping whom.

I guess i've only been blatently groped by strange women 5 or so times. The last time was a ass slap/squeeze by a creepy girl surrounded by her friends.
I turned, "that's fucking sexual assualt, you know."

She replied with "hah, what are you gonna do about it? Go tell a cop, you faggot, see if they care."

Certainly doesn't happen nearly as much against men as women, but interesting to note how similar the behaviour is on the agressors part to many stories here.

"You know the only difference between verbal harassment and a good pick up line is how cute is the man delivering it."

Are you serious with this shit, Jen? Because I can list a great number of differences between being hit on and being harrassed: is the man speaking to me in a respectful manner? does he respond to signals that I do not want or am uncomfortable with his intentions? Are his actions and speech expressing an interest in my desires, or are they merely an attempt to put me in my place as an object for him to dominate? Trust me. I've been harrassed, and I've been hit on, and I've never had trouble telling the difference.

Respect and the golden rule apply for men and women here.

It's so true, there's such a double standard. Don't we all know scores of men who've been raped by women? Groped on public transportation by females? Who are afraid to go out late at night for fear of being sexually assaulted by women? It's really difficult for young men, especially the attractive, nubile ones who "ask for it" by dressing sexy - you know, tee-shirts, jeans, allowing the luscious nape of their necks to be exposed above their shirt collars, etc. I realize that girls will be girls, and we're genetically wired to be voracious sexual predators, but it's truly unjust that so many men have had their physical and mental health compromised by the experience of sexual violence by women, or who have to take into account in so many ways - daily commute, housing, and work schedule - the threat of physical assault from women.

Any woman who raises her hand at a man and doesn't think she deserves to be hit back simply hasn't earned the right to be treated equally.

ScyllaCharybdis, will you marry me? (In a purely metaphorical, complimentary way, of course!)

genderdetective, you don't have to "earn" rights. That's what makes them rights.

Great EG! I think we should give all the rapists and other violent predators only 1 week in prison before we give them back their right to freely walk the street again. Perhaps, give them no prison sentence at all for violent people don't have to "earn" their rights, that's what makes them rights. Further, feminism is not about equality when it is convenient for women so please EG, stop trying to imply that.

Any woman who raises her hand at a man and doesn't think she deserves to be hit back simply hasn't earned the right to be treated equally.

your choice of words was wrong. you should have said "doesn't have the right" because women are often told they have to "earn" basic equality.

genderdetective, I have no idea how you got from my comment to some bizarre rant about not imprisoning rapists. Do you want to parse your "logic" for me?

Donna got my point precisely, though.

Insanity, EG. Trolls have to drink the dirty, polluted water from the rivers flowing under the bridges they live under.

Did you catch his other post about how we should be concerned with how all the men responded to the Montreal Massacre? Because 13 women dying isn't ENOUGH to make it a tragedy.

Donna's a sharp one. Very succint posts.

Trolls fall into the brackish water from whence they came. I merely point and laugh.

"The poor men! Won't somebody think of the men!"

Oh my, prairielily. Oh my. Nope, I'd missed the troll's other little gem. And now...I am speechless. I want to mock, but my mockery gears have fused together at the overload.

Fortunately, I can depend on you and Donna. Thank goodness. And you two, of course.

You're right Donna! I am wrong, I should of said, "doesn't have the right". My apology. My bad. However, the Montréal Massacre memorials have become a tool to needlessly shame and guilt all men and boys, and has created a mutual resentment and mistrust between the sexes. We should be concerned with how all the men responded to the Montreal Massacre, for violence against women is every body's problem. Teaching how violence against women affects men will make men feel they are a part of the fight against it and will encourage men to rise to break its chain. Donna, one woman dead is a big enough tragedy, 13 is a catastrophe, and allow me to remind you that 14 women dead is the awful truth. So, let's not forget the true purpose of the Montreal Massacre memorials.

You're right Donna! I am wrong, I should of said, "doesn't have the right". My apology. My bad. However, the Montréal Massacre memorials have become a tool to needlessly shame and guilt all men and boys, and has created a mutual resentment and mistrust between the sexes. We should be concerned with how all the men responded to the Montreal Massacre, for violence against women is every body's problem. Teaching how violence against women affects men will make men feel they are a part of the fight against it and will encourage men to rise to break its chain. Donna, one woman dead is a big enough tragedy, 13 is a catastrophe, and allow me to remind you that 14 women dead is the awful truth. So, let's not forget the true purpose of the Montreal Massacre memorials.

More fun with trolls...

However, the Montréal Massacre memorials have become a tool to needlessly shame and guilt all men and boys

You're on a blog about equality. You should watch what you say and how you say it so it doesn't come across as anti-equality. My guess is English is not your first language but you have to not chafe people who are pro-equality.

and has created a mutual resentment and mistrust between the sexes.

A man shot 14 innocent, young women. Remember it is a man who caused this mutual resentment and mistrust. Without the murder of 14 innocent people, no resentment and mistrust.

We should be concerned with how all the men responded to the Montreal Massacre, for violence against women is every body's problem. Teaching how violence against women affects men will make men feel they are a part of the fight against it and will encourage men to rise to break its chain.

Lead the charge against your fellow men's sexism and inequality. Join feminist ally groups, become a pro-feminist/feminist, criticize men who are sexist, start masculinity/gender programs at schools near you, etc.

Donna, one woman dead is a big enough tragedy, 13 is a catastrophe, and allow me to remind you that 14 women dead is the awful truth. So, let's not forget the true purpose of the Montreal Massacre memorials.

Did I mention the Montreal Massacre before at Feministing? No. It's a foregone conclusion for feminists that it's a tragedy.

You could call me a troll, I am here because I really disagree with the premise of this thread, which is that it is good advice to tell women to hit men who verbally or physically harrass them. I think it is easier to call people trolls than actually look at the content of their posts. If you really think I am a man, then I guess there is nothing I can do about that. Again, if it is easier than dealing with content....

I think it IS very relevant that men rarely hit women who strike them. Vervain was very close in thinking about why, her reasons are good. The main reason is that most men are programmed from the time they are toddlers not to ever hit girls. Most men never do hit girls or women. Men ARE expected to want sex all the time, they are told they are shallow whores, then treated as such, and called fags when they aren't, is it any wonder many feel they must live up to that?

Women do all the same behaviors as men, including raping, beating, cheating, stalking, etc. There was a Florida study out that showed teen girls are more likely to abuse their partners than teen boys. Women who rape can later take child support from them if they get pregnant-the fact is that female rapists are not treated like male rapists. No wonder society looks the other way. Women also have their own ways of abusing men; playing the pregnancy card, false allegations of abuse, playing men against each other. Men and women both have a list of bad behaviors. We are no more saints than men are.

Most men never treat women they way that is being described here. It is a minority of men who act like this, just as it is a minority of women who act the same.

I was being sarcastic about the good looking comment.

My main point is that this poster is a very clear example of how women are told they can do any behavior they wish without repricussion, and how it is only thanks to men's self control that they do not get seriously hurt. If men were to act the same for insults or rudeness then we would not be thinking this was a positive thing.

Thank you for listening Jenk, you are an intelligent woman who truly believes in equality.

JenK, no one called you a troll or thinks you're a man. I don't think anyone supported women hitting or raping men. Besides, men batter, rape and murder women not vice versa more than 90% of the time so you and genderdetective should probably go elsewhere for concerns about male victimhood.

Word, donna.

Jen, not only did nobody call you a troll or question your gender, but your arguments, such as they are, have been addressed. They simply don't make sense.

You say that women should not hit men who physically "harrass" or initiate a sexual assault on them. Your reasons, as far as I could tell were that 1) we shouldn't "escalate and 2) the men in question would hurt us. To recap my responses, I disagree that hitting is escalating; as far as I'm concerned, it's an appropriate response to someone grabbing me without my consent. Nor do I agree that I'm taking my life into my hands by hitting. First of all, we're already talking about a man who sees no problem using physical force to intimidate and hurt women, so I don't see how my actions are to blame for his decisions. Second, most of the harrassers who do shit like this seem to depend on embarrassed silence on the part of the woman: a loud and forceful physical response draws everybody's attention, making it less likely that they'll cause serious harm.

Now you've gone on to say that women shouldn't hit men who grab them against their will because...it's not fair because the men won't hit back? Try to be a bit consistent, there.

None of this made you a troll. However, coming along and claiming that "Women do all the same behaviors as men, including raping, beating, cheating, stalking, etc." without acknowledging that men commit violence against women at astronomically higher rates than vice versa, or that women are far more likely to abuse their partners when they're in same-sex relationships? That just earned you the troll badge.

So now you can claim that somebody called you a troll. Congrats.

Word, donna.

Jen, not only did nobody call you a troll or question your gender, but your arguments, such as they are, have been addressed. They simply don't make sense.

You say that women should not hit men who physically "harrass" or initiate a sexual assault on them. Your reasons, as far as I could tell were that 1) we shouldn't "escalate and 2) the men in question would hurt us. To recap my responses, I disagree that hitting is escalating; as far as I'm concerned, it's an appropriate response to someone grabbing me without my consent. Nor do I agree that I'm taking my life into my hands by hitting. First of all, we're already talking about a man who sees no problem using physical force to intimidate and hurt women, so I don't see how my actions are to blame for his decisions. Second, most of the harrassers who do shit like this seem to depend on embarrassed silence on the part of the woman: a loud and forceful physical response draws everybody's attention, making it less likely that they'll cause serious harm.

Now you've gone on to say that women shouldn't hit men who grab them against their will because...it's not fair because the men won't hit back? Try to be a bit consistent, there.

None of this made you a troll. However, coming along and claiming that "Women do all the same behaviors as men, including raping, beating, cheating, stalking, etc." without acknowledging that men commit violence against women at astronomically higher rates than vice versa, or that women are more likely to be the abusers when the relationship is same-sex rather than heterosexual? That just earned you the troll badge.

So now you can claim that somebody called you a troll. Congrats.

JenK and gd, you should go to men's rights forums or here:

http://savethemales.ca/

There are privileged men in this world and there are privileged women as well. But the majority of men and women are not privileged. But when we speak of the term "privileged" we as a society only look up at the leaders of our society which are mostly men, and this will change. However, if we were to take a second and look down to the bottom of our society we will find that the majority of people down there are mostly men as well. The victims of violence, the victims of homelessness, the victims of suicide, drug and alcohol addiction, the mentally ill, those injured or killed on the job, those who die young. So Donna, stop being so bitter because you weren't invited to your high school prom and take that spoon fed diet of Oprah Winfrey out of your mouth.

I was invited to prom and don't watch Oprah. You won't get anywhere in the feminist movement with your condescending MRA tactics. What you're talking about is dismantling patriarchy which is terrible for both men and women. Feminists are already doing this but you won't get anywhere saying men suffer more than women.

I was invited to prom and don't watch Oprah.

You won't get anywhere with your condescending MRA tactics. Patriarchy and capitalism are at the root of the problems you listed above and feminists are already trying to deconstruct them. You won't get anywhere saying men suffer more than women (which is what you've done) because male privilege disadvantages women not men. You can talk about how capitalism and patriarchy hurt men but you cannot say men as a class suffer more than women.

gd,

you're not interested in justice or equality and only to preserve male privilege.

Donna, though I disagree, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, I don't respect you because you are a woman, I respect you because I honestly believe that you are a decent human being. After all, feminism is the radical notion that women are people too.

genderdetective, by using sexist personal attacks on donna (not being invited to the prom, Oprah), you have conclusively demonstrated that you do not in fact respect her.

JenK- My main point is that this poster is a very clear example of how women are told they can do any behavior they wish without repricussion, and how it is only thanks to men's self control that they do not get seriously hurt. If men were to act the same for insults or rudeness then we would not be thinking this was a positive thing.

Are you kidding me? The only reason so many men think it is ok to harrass is because they expect no repurcussion (you know what with women being so weedy and nice and all). Are these the same men who have self control now? Are you telling me I'm lucky that women are only sexually harrassed because it could be worse?

At the beginning of this thread I dissagreed with the poster for it's encouragement of violence. This was not out of sympathy for the wankers who think it is ok to harrass those they don't expect to hit them back (which is why they harrass women rather than other men). I think that strategically it is better for feminists to condemn all violence because it is ultimately women who suffer the most in violent situations.

Those who harrass on the street have no self control. It is they (not feminists) who belive they are beyond repurcussion and men do act out as a result of insults and rudeness. Also are you going to provide some support for the statement you make about female rapists being such a problem? I don't know what the stats are in the US but the vast majority of violent crime here in the UK is still committed by men. Until it is otherwise I'll not feel sorry for those men who suffer at the hands of violent women rather then the men who suffer at the hands of other violent men.

personal attacks get you banned on this site, genderdetective. buhbye.

Most men never treat women they way that is being described here. It is a minority of men who act like this, just as it is a minority of women who act the same.

Then most men won't have to worry about being yelled at, having beer dumped on their heads, or slapped.

Seems pretty simple (even a sort of quid pro quo.

As for the nonsense about not imprisoning people who are a menace to the body politic, that's why it's referred to as a forfieture of rights.

When someone assaults me, I don't forfeit the right to respond. If the response is disproportionate they have the right to have me prosecuted.

It's called parity.