Catcalling as teasing is also low-risk, since you aren’t offending someone you know, possibly making new enemies.
Also, since it’s usually a male(s)-on-female occurrence, there’s the superior physical strength of the harassers, often backed by strength in numbers. Suppose the conflict escalates; what could the victim possibly do to the harasser, that the harasser can’t return with even greater force? Suppose she has a strong, visible negative reaction; you know what the catcallers will do? Laugh, ridicule and humiliate her. From their point of view, the behavior has all the benefits it could have, and none of the drawbacks. It’s as low-risk an offense as you can possibly get.
Maybe that’s where one can act to reduce instances of the behavior. Increase expected associated risk by a significant amount. Make it so that it no longer pays off. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to actually enforce a law or norm against street harassment, or to take any action that is both 1) a sufficiently strong deterrent and 2) within the bounds of legality and legitimate self-defense.
The trouble with “Increase expected associated risk” is that catcalling is normalized in this culture as a thing men are allowed to do to women against their will—a response that treats it as an assault (pepper spray to the eyes, for example) would be considered an over-reaction.
Maybe that’s where one can act to reduce instances of the behavior. Increase expected associated risk by a significant amount. Make it so that it no longer pays off. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to actually enforce a law or norm against street harassment, or to take any action that is both 1) a sufficiently strong deterrent and 2) within the bounds of legality and legitimate self-defense.
Not sure about self-defense, but it might be legal to pull a gun on them on the basis that you wee afraid of rape or something. That should shut them up.
I strongly recommend against deploying a weapon as an empty threat. Don’t pull a gun unless you expect to have both the intent and the willingness to kill. Otherwise you just gave them a weapon and an excuse.
Don’t pull a gun unless you expect to have both the intent and the willingness to kill.
As if the fulfillment of this condition makes it good advice to respond to verbal aggressiveness with gun threats. Worse still, someone who is actually capable of shooting people over lewd remarks would probably be considered too much of a psycho to have been allowed a gun in the first place. (Not disagreeing with you there, just pointing out that there are stronger objections to be raised against that recommendation—from the point of view of legal consequences, not just of immediate safety.)
A not-loaded gun is still a weapon, it’s just one that isn’t useful to somebody lacking in upper-body strength. And they might have loaded guns, and then you’re in a western standoff (cue whistling, tumbleweed) and you’ve brought an awkward metal club to a gunfight. Lets not do that either.
Also, since it’s usually a male(s)-on-female occurrence, there’s the superior physical strength of the harassers, often backed by strength in numbers. Suppose the conflict escalates; what could the victim possibly do to the harasser, that the harasser can’t return with even greater force? Suppose she has a strong, visible negative reaction; you know what the catcallers will do? Laugh, ridicule and humiliate her. From their point of view, the behavior has all the benefits it could have, and none of the drawbacks. It’s as low-risk an offense as you can possibly get.
Maybe that’s where one can act to reduce instances of the behavior. Increase expected associated risk by a significant amount. Make it so that it no longer pays off. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to actually enforce a law or norm against street harassment, or to take any action that is both 1) a sufficiently strong deterrent and 2) within the bounds of legality and legitimate self-defense.
The trouble with “Increase expected associated risk” is that catcalling is normalized in this culture as a thing men are allowed to do to women against their will—a response that treats it as an assault (pepper spray to the eyes, for example) would be considered an over-reaction.
I thought there were websites for uploading catcalling to embarrass the people doing it, but I haven’t found them. I did find Hollaback.
Not sure about self-defense, but it might be legal to pull a gun on them on the basis that you wee afraid of rape or something. That should shut them up.
I strongly recommend against deploying a weapon as an empty threat. Don’t pull a gun unless you expect to have both the intent and the willingness to kill. Otherwise you just gave them a weapon and an excuse.
As if the fulfillment of this condition makes it good advice to respond to verbal aggressiveness with gun threats. Worse still, someone who is actually capable of shooting people over lewd remarks would probably be considered too much of a psycho to have been allowed a gun in the first place. (Not disagreeing with you there, just pointing out that there are stronger objections to be raised against that recommendation—from the point of view of legal consequences, not just of immediate safety.)
I never said the gun should be loaded …
In all seriousness, though, you’re right. Pulling a gun would be a terrible idea, no matter how much the idea amuses me.
A not-loaded gun is still a weapon, it’s just one that isn’t useful to somebody lacking in upper-body strength. And they might have loaded guns, and then you’re in a western standoff (cue whistling, tumbleweed) and you’ve brought an awkward metal club to a gunfight. Lets not do that either.
Not arguing with you there. Funny and safe are entirely different things.