Male violence against women in the UK

[DynamicSpirit]

That sounds like a horrifically easy way to enable state abuse, especially for some the more oppressive regimes (and tbh, given the way our own country have treated people who had views the government doesn't like - think of how protestors of various kinds have been treated over the years, it sounds horrible even for us too).

Without wanting to get off-topic, I think for the UK that fear is exaggerated. Yes there are regimes that abuse people horrifically, but frankly many of those regimes are learning to control the Internet anyway, completely irrespective of anything we do in the UK. China in particular is already very obviously miles ahead of the UK in controlling social media access. I very much doubt that anything we do to clean up social media in the UK would have any influence on what happens in China. Within the UK the way to prevent any state abuse is to have a very robust system of checks and balances on what the Government can do (which to some extent already exists).

But in the end, the British Government does not regularly send rape threats, death threats unwanted and threatening sexual pictures etc. to women. Whereas we know that many thousands (maybe, tens or hundreds of thousands) of ordinary people in the UK, when allowed to act anonymously, will happily send those kinds of messages. If you want to make the online world a safe and inviting place for everyone, I really don't think you have a choice about making sure that people can be identified.

 

[backontrack]

Backontrack. Your post is outstanding and the best I have seen across various forums. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I have a daughter and I’m in a predominantly female family and I’m sick of all this toxic masculinity that’s prevalent in our society.

The Met Police behaviour was appalling and if anyone backs their action you are part of the problem.

Thank you, 83A. This was really very kind of you, and I really appreciate it it did help put me in a better mood.

In all honestly, I'm a little relieved, because I expected this thread to be a lot more contentious. If a little bit of accord and solidarity can be forged on a fairly niche and homogenously male internet webforum, then maybe that means something.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Backontrack. Your post is outstanding and the best I have seen across various forums. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I have a daughter and I’m in a predominantly female family and I’m sick of all this toxic masculinity that’s prevalent in our society.

The Met Police behaviour was appalling and if anyone backs their action you are part of the problem.

I missed this yesterday. I also thought @backontrack's initial post was mainly pretty good, although I disagreed with his comments about the police. However I'd really ask you to think again about the bit I've bolded. That reads a bit like the 'if you're not absolutely 110% for us then you're the enemy' attitude that has in part so toxified much of politics over the last decade or so. Can you not see that it's possible to be horrified by Sarah Everard's death, deeply concerned at the way so many women feel unsafe doing basic things that should be part of normal life, to want things to change - AND at the same time to believe in respecting social distancing and lockdown laws and to accept that the police do have a responsibility to enforce those laws.

It seems like there will be some sort of enquiry into what happened in Clapham on Saturday and I guess to some extent we should wait till that comes back before passing too much judgement - but it seems clear from various reports that, at the time the police took their action, the vigil had ended and turned into a demonstration with speakers - which is illegal under laws designed to stop people getting killed by a very infectious disease. The metropolitan police federation is reporting that 26 police officers were assaulted during that demonstration. Under those circumstances I'd be very wary of passing judgement on what the police did under what are obviously difficult circumstances, and I certainly wouldn't be claiming that anyone who supports the police action is part of the problem.

 

[83A]

However I'd really ask you to think again about the bit I've bolded. That reads a bit like the 'if you're not absolutely 110% for us then you're the enemy' attitude that has in part so toxified much of politics over the last decade or so.

OK I understand what you are saying and maybe I should have granulated further. I sure the Police have it difficult at the moment with the ever changing and confusing law machine from Westminster. I actually have ex Police in my family and I know what a tough job it can be, so I don’t have any axe to grind in general.

But.

A met copper has just been charged with murdering a woman and tensions were running high. The courts deemed the gathering was not illegal and the police should have done everything they could to allow it it happen and maybe turn a blind eye to any minor breaches.

But you like I saw the footage and they were heavy handed and women were wrestled to the ground. My point was if you don’t find that appalling you are part of the problem.

Imagine that was a woman in your life (partner/sister/mother) how would you feel about those scenes then?

I respect your points and I don’t want to make anything “toxic” however the above is how I feel.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OK I understand what you are saying and maybe I should have granulated further. I sure the Police have it difficult at the moment with the ever changing and confusing law machine from Westminster. I actually have ex Police in my family and I know what a tough job it can be, so I don’t have any axe to grind in general.

OK that's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

But.

A met copper has just been charged with murdering a woman and tensions were running high. The courts deemed the gathering was not illegal and the police should have done everything they could to allow it it happen and maybe turn a blind eye to any minor breaches.

But you like I saw the footage and they were heavy handed and women were wrestled to the ground. My point was if you don’t find that appalling you are part of the problem.

Imagine that was a woman in your life (partner/sister/mother) how would you feel about those scenes then?

I respect your points and I don’t want to make anything “toxic” however the above is how I feel.

I agree tensions are running high at the moment, as are people's emotions (very understandably) - and that makes for a difficult situation. But I'd still be a bit more careful about "if you don’t find that appalling you are part of the problem". I hope I haven't misunderstood you but you seem to be making a big thing of the fact that it was a *woman* who was wrestled to the ground, and you're asking me specifically how I'd feel if a female relative was arrested in that way. Can I ask... is there an unspoken assumption there that it would somehow be OK (or at least, less bad) if it was a man who was arrested in the same way in an identical situation?

To be clear, obviously I would not want any relative (or anyone for that matter) to be mistreated. Luckily I've never been arrested, but I can imagine it's not a pleasant experience no matter how it's done. But I think the question needs to be, was the way that the woman was arrested appropriate and proportionate given the situation? Since I guess neither of us was there and neither of us are in the police, that's impossible for us to know either way. Hopefully any enquiry would answer that question. But as someone who wants to see - as far as possible - women enjoying as near as possible equal rights and freedoms as men - I don't think the gender of the person being arrested should be a consideration in that. I feel a little concerned that the fact that it's a woman is what's behind a lot of the outrage on the media - and that - if I'm correct - is obviously not treating all people equally.

 

[83A]

Thank you, 83A. This was really very kind of you, and I really appreciate it it did help put me in a better mood.

In all honestly, I'm a little relieved, because I expected this thread to be a lot more contentious. If a little bit of accord and solidarity can be forged on a fairly niche and homogenously male internet webforum, then maybe that means something.

backontrack.. No worries mate, I get it. Its just a shame reading this thread there are still far too many misogynistic dinosaurs in our society.

 

[JamesT]

OK I understand what you are saying and maybe I should have granulated further. I sure the Police have it difficult at the moment with the ever changing and confusing law machine from Westminster. I actually have ex Police in my family and I know what a tough job it can be, so I don’t have any axe to grind in general.

But.

A met copper has just been charged with murdering a woman and tensions were running high. The courts deemed the gathering was not illegal and the police should have done everything they could to allow it it happen and maybe turn a blind eye to any minor breaches.

But you like I saw the footage and they were heavy handed and women were wrestled to the ground. My point was if you don’t find that appalling you are part of the problem.

Imagine that was a woman in your life (partner/sister/mother) how would you feel about those scenes then?

I respect your points and I don’t want to make anything “toxic” however the above is how I feel.

My understanding of the court ruling was it was somewhat more nuanced than that. Unfortunately I can't seem to find a link to the actual ruling, but I'm assuming the quotes on Sarah Everard vigil organisers lose court challenge - BBC News are accurate. The judge suggested the organisers and the Met could potentially find a way to hold a legal protest, but instead the organisers decided to cancel it.

I've seen bits of footage where the police appear to be heavy handed, but it's all quite short snippets. There's very little context as to what had led up to that, whether the police had attempted a peaceful dispersal first before escalating or being provoked.

 

[Ediswan]

The judge suggested the organisers and the Met could potentially find a way to hold a legal protest, but instead the organisers decided to cancel it.

My understanding is that discussions were taking place, then the Met changed to a non-negotiable 'no'. The court case followed. The organisers had no option but to cancel.

 

[peters]

Please see my post #51. There was good reason why, in the past in this country and still today in some societies, women only went outside any distance chaperoned by a trusted male. Women in this country demanded an end to this practice and are now reaping what thy have sown, for both good (freedom) and bad (fear). Contrary to some opinion this practice was not entirely connected with controlling the women, but for their safety and to allay their fears. This was not only protection from robbery.

Women aren't children and shouldn't be treated as such. If a young child wants something from a newsagent then a parent should accompany them, they shouldn't be going by themselves. If a woman living by herself starts preparing dinner and realises she's short of milk then she shouldn't need to dial a bodyguard before walking to the local convenience store.

Men are physically stronger than women.

On average. Not all women are weaker than all men. You may have heard the media reports about the man who tried to steal from a woman who was sunbathing on a beach, only for her friend (an off duty female police officer) to restrain him until on duty police arrived. Alternatively the story of the man who thought he could mug a woman, only for the woman to be a professional wrestler.

Both men and women have an inbuilt urge for sexual relations and reproduction (just like every other living creature on this Earth). However, the human social conditioning is such that this takes place on a mutual basis, which leaves some (of either sex) without the urge being fulfilled. For males, however, their strength can assist when the mutual basis is unavailable.

It is very wrong to say men who are sexually unfulfilled will go out and attack women, some may do that but many would not even contemplate that.

Post #1 quotes 97% of YOUNG women (18-24) in the UK have been sexually harassed, according to UN Women. I can only guess what constitutes sexual harassment, but it must be a pretty low bar including any 'unwanted' attention by a male - wolf whistle, spooky look, asked for a date by someone unwanted, social media message etc. Men must only speak when they are spoken to?

The first sort of valid point in your post. There's no strict definition of sexual assault, it depends on what the individual finds acceptable and unacceptable. One of the Northern guards who has worked trains I have caught is a young female guard who has what you could describe as a working class Manchester accent and she greets passengers (both male and female) using terms like love, darling, gorgeous etc., no-one seems to mind but it's possible if there was a young male guard using those terms when addressing female passengers only that there might be some unhappy passengers.

 

[hst43102]

The first sort of valid point in your post. There's no strict definition of sexual assault, it depends on what the individual finds acceptable and unacceptable. One of the Northern guards who has worked trains I have caught is a young female guard who has what you could describe as a working class Manchester accent and she greets passengers (both male and female) using terms like love, darling, gorgeous etc., no-one seems to mind but it's possible if there was a young male guard using those terms when addressing female passengers only that there might be some unhappy passengers.

I'm not convinced that many people are offended by that kind of language. Most of the stories I've read of people being unhappy about being called love, darling, etc are Americans in genuinely creepy situations. I think it's much more acceptable over here, especially in the North.

 

[peters]

I'm not convinced that many people are offended by that kind of language. Most of the stories I've read of people being unhappy about being called love, darling, etc are Americans in genuinely creepy situations. I think it's much more acceptable over here, especially in the North.

I think you're right it's more common up north but I also think it's more common in traditional working class areas. I would not expect a shop assistant working in Waitrose in Wilmslow (posh Cheshire town) to say something like "Cheers love" to a customer but it perhaps wouldn't seem strange if a shop assistant in Home Bargains in Wythenshawe (area south of Manchester with lots of social housing) to say the same thing.

One thing I've noted is the 18-24 reference, that'll include students who have grown up in posh southern towns and may be staying in student housing in a not-so-posh area of a Northern town or city. That could also include some young women who feel uncomfortable with those terms but also won't feel comfortable enough to say something in response like "Don't call me love."

 

[StationTown]

There's been a lot of accusations and finger pointing going on, but I can't see any actual mysoginy or sexism in the last two pages of this thread. Can we all just agree that there is a major problem here and try to find useful solutions like @LSWR Cavalier attempted?

There's no point in talking about solutions if we are unable to identify blatant misogyny as it occurs. There are numerous posts on this thread which demonstrate clear misogyny, some disturbingly so. It is depressing but sadly not surprising.

 

[southern442]

I'm not convinced that many people are offended by that kind of language. Most of the stories I've read of people being unhappy about being called love, darling, etc are Americans in genuinely creepy situations. I think it's much more acceptable over here, especially in the North.

Agreed. Whilst it may be a little outdated in some situations, it is usually perfectly alright, especially in parts of this country. People going and sitting next to women on an empty train, or attempting to flirt with strangers in public, and other such behaviours are perhaps more what constitutes harassment. The people who are clamouring the loudest in retaliation when it comes to this issue are probably people who do this and are struggling to come to terms with the fact that it makes women very uncomfortable.

 

[Geezertronic]

It would be a good idea to ask the 97% of young women (18-24) what harassment they suffered - confidentially if necessary

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The lady guard using 'love', 'duck' and the like is taking the initiative, maybe controlling the situation, perhaps she was trained to do so, very good I think. I understand there are small police officers who assert themselves in like manner.

 

[peters]

People going and sitting next to women on an empty train

Why people sit where they do often doesn't make sense to strangers. I think a lot of us think that if there's lot of empty seats the best place to sit is away from everyone else as that way we get lots of space to ourselves.

At one point I used the train to get to work on a train that wasn't that busy, for the section I used it and there were some schoolchildren who travelled on the same train. I noticed with a few of them (girls in particular) would walk past rows of empty seats and sit directly in front of myself or another adult passenger. It might be they thought other schoolchildren were a potential threat and that threat would be reduced if an adult could see and hear anything that happened to them.

I imagine all of us have at some point boarded a train when it's quiet but we know it'll be crowded before we alight, so if you're claustrophobic or suffer from social anxiety you might not want to be sat in the window seat of a train, with lots of people between where you are and the door you'll have to get to when you need to alight. So perhaps for those people sitting next to someone seems the best option even if it seems strange.

or attempting to flirt with strangers in public, and other such behaviours are perhaps more what constitutes harassment.

I think this is an instance of where we can identify a problem and identify a solution. It seems commonplace in western society for women to not approach men when they are interested in them and to make themselves appear approachable and hope the man they like approaches them. Unfortunately, men aren't always good at reading body language. If we change the social norm so that it's seen as normal for women to approach men they fancy and if men become better at understanding body language then maybe those instances of harassment would reduce.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

People going and sitting next to women on an empty train, or attempting to flirt with strangers in public, and other such behaviours are perhaps more what constitutes harassment. The people who are clamouring the loudest in retaliation when it comes to this issue are probably people who do this and are struggling to come to terms with the fact that it makes women very uncomfortable.

Generally agree but with one nuance: I wouldn't say that attempting to flirt with a stranger in public is harassment per se. I would say the boundary is more like... if you attempt to flirt with someone and they make it clear they are not interested (for example, by being completely non-responsive), then you immediately accept that and politely walk away. If you carry on, refusing to take 'no' for an answer, then THAT would generally be harassment (and wrong). Your example of sitting next to a woman on an empty train - yes, totally agree - that would generally be completely weird.

There's no point in talking about solutions if we are unable to identify blatant misogyny as it occurs. There are numerous posts on this thread which demonstrate clear misogyny, some disturbingly so. It is depressing but sadly not surprising.

Misogyny: According to Cambridge: feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women.

That seems to me to sum up the meaning of misogyny pretty well.

I haven't seen any post in this thread that displays misogyny. I've seen lots of posts that I disagree with, and lots of other posts that make interesting points. Throwing around wild accusations like misogyny at people you disagree with is unfortunately a very good way to shut down reasoned debate. Far better, if you disagree with someone, to explain why you disagree with them. (Of course, if you have specific examples in mind of posts where someone has indicated hatred of women or an attitude of women being inferior, then feel free to quote the actual posts - if there are such examples that I've missed, then I'll be happy to change my mind).

 

[StationTown]

]
Misogyny: According to Cambridge: feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women.

That seems to me to sum up the meaning of misogyny pretty well.

I haven't seen any post in this thread that displays misogyny. I've seen lots of posts that I disagree with, and lots of other posts that make interesting points. Throwing around wild accusations like misogyny at people you disagree with is unfortunately a very good way to shut down reasoned debate. Far better, if you disagree with someone, to explain why you disagree with them. (Of course, if you have specific examples in mind of posts where someone has indicated hatred of women or an attitude of women being inferior, then feel free to quote the actual posts - if there are such examples that I've missed, then I'll be happy to change my mind).

I disagree with you. I think you know the posts I am referring to. If you can't see it then I can't help you.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I disagree with you. I think you know the posts I am referring to. If you can't see it then I can't help you.

No, I do not know which posts you are referring to (and bear in mind we're already on post #138 so there are a LOT of posts in this thread).

I would assume that if these allegedly misogynystic posts exist in this thread and I've missed them, then it would take no more than a minute or so of your time to find them, and quote the relevant text so I and others could know what you're talking about. Since you have refused to do so, it would appear that your position is that you are not prepared to substantiate a wild (and pretty unpleasant) accusation that you make against other people. That of course makes any reasoned discussion virtually impossible.

 

[StationTown]

No, I do not know which posts you are referring to (and bear in mind we're already on post #138 so there are a LOT of posts in this thread).

I would assume that if these allegedly misogynystic posts exist in this thread and I've missed them, then it would take no more than a minute or so of your time to find them, and quote the relevant text so I and others could know what you're talking about. Since you have refused to do so, it would appear that your position is that you are not prepared to substantiate wild accusations that you make against other people. That of course makes any reasoned discussion virtually impossible.

You may want to start a debate on what does or doesn't constitute mysogyny but I'm not interested in that. My post was in response to someone who has followed the thread and I was making the point that there is a disparity between acknowledging the problem and seeking solutions, then not recognising textbook mysogyny when it occurs, of which there are blatant examples in this thread. Other people have already called out these posts as nonsense. If you like you can read back through the thread to understand.

 

[hst43102]

You may want to start a debate on what does or doesn't constitute mysogyny but I'm not interested in that. My post was in response to someone who has followed the thread and I was making the point that there is a disparity between acknowledging the problem and seeking solutions, then not recognising textbook mysogyny when it occurs, of which there are blatant examples in this thread. Other people have already called out these posts as nonsense. If you like you can read back through the thread to understand.

Without meaning to cause any offense, I note that you're rather new to this forum and therefore I have no idea where you stand on these issues. I have, however, highlighted one part of your comment - in which you say that the posts are "nonsense". Nonsensical posts (of which there are a fair few in this thread!) are very different from misogynistic posts?

 

[StationTown]

Without meaning to cause any offense, I note that you're rather new to this forum and therefore I have no idea where you stand on these issues. I have, however, highlighted one part of your comment - in which you say that the posts are "nonsense". Nonsensical posts (of which there are a fair few in this thread!) are very different from misogynistic posts?

I'm not saying the posts are nonsense and therefore misogynist. I'm saying they're misogynist nonsense.

As I said before, I'd rather not get into semantics about where the boundary lies between discourse that is, at best, very disrespectful towards women, and what is outright mysogyny. In the context of this thread, all such views are part of the problem. You may disagree with me but in my opinion, if you're looking for solutions to the issues as outlined by the OP, with whom I agree, then it's important to call out misogynist tropes when they appear. You say there is no evidence of such tropes in this thread. I disagree.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You may want to start a debate on what does or doesn't constitute mysogyny but I'm not interested in that.

No, I'm not really interested in that either. The definition of misogyny is pretty clear and readily available (I've already posted a link to one reasonably authoritative source). I'd much rather carry on discussing how we can realistically reduce the number of attacks on women and make women (as well as people in general) feel safer.

But the problem is, when you respond to people's opinions by accusing people of unpleasant things like misogyny instead of explaining why you disagree with them, you make it much harder to have an open discussion. Personally, I haven't agreed with everything that's been written but overall I think this thread has generally been great for the way people have opened up, given various opinions, and suggested various possible solutions on what is a very sensitive and (to many people, deeply personal) topic. But if the thread descends into 'hey, you're a just a misogynyst' etc. then the risk is some people will start to be afraid to say what they feel for fear of being (possibly, unfairly) labelled, and the discussion then gets much weakened.

if you're looking for solutions to the issues as outlined by the OP, with whom I agree, then it's important to call out misogynist tropes when they appear. You say there is no evidence of such tropes in this thread. I disagree.

But IF (and I'm certainly not convinced) there has been misogyny in this thread, then you're not calling it out, are you! When challenged, you've repeatedly declined to specify what was said that you (apparently) find so objectionable and why - which means unless people can magically read your mind, they're not going to have much idea what you're talking about. That's hardly calling out misogyny!

And on a more general note, I agree if someone is actually posting hatred of women then then that should called out as misogyny. But you need to be pretty sure it really is misogyny - not merely an opinion you disagree with. At the moment, I strongly suspect it'll turn out to be the latter, but you're welcome to prove me wrong...

 

[StationTown]

No, I'm not really interested in that either. The definition of misogyny is pretty clear and readily available (I've already posted a link to one reasonably authoritative source). I'd much rather carry on discussing how we can realistically reduce the number of attacks on women and make women (as well as people in general) feel safer.

But the problem is, when you respond to people's opinions by accusing people of unpleasant things like misogyny instead of explaining why you disagree with them, you make it much harder to have an open discussion. Personally, I haven't agreed with everything that's been written but overall I think this thread has generally been great for the way people have opened up, given various opinions, and suggested various possible solutions on what is a very sensitive and (to many people, deeply personal) topic. But if the thread descends into 'hey, you're a just a misogynyst' etc. then the risk is some people will start to be afraid to say what they feel for fear of being (possibly, unfairly) labelled, and the discussion then gets much weakened.



But IF (and I'm certainly not convinced) there has been misogyny in this thread, then you're not calling it out, are you! When challenged, you've repeatedly declined to specify what was said that you (apparently) find so objectionable and why - which means unless people can magically read your mind, they're not going to have much idea what you're talking about. That's hardly calling out misogyny!

And on a more general note, I agree if someone is actually posting hatred of women then then that should called out as misogyny. But you need to be pretty sure it really is misogyny - not merely an opinion you disagree with. At the moment, I strongly suspect it'll turn out to be the latter, but you're welcome to prove me wrong...

I'm sorry but you're missing my point. Someone has said there's no evidence of sexist/misogynist comments on this thread. I happen to disagree and think unless you can see how certain comments here are disrespectful/prejudiced towards women then this is problematic in relation to OP. I have no interest in starting a debate on what does or doesn't constitute misogyny which sharing individual posts would do. If you have no idea what posts I could possibly find problematic then that is unfortunate but there's nothing more I can do for you.

 

[Cowley]

Probably time to stop going around in circles at this point...
Please keep posts clear and not too cryptic so that it doesn’t become a back and forth from now on.
Thanks everyone.

 

[Bevan Price]

Generally agree but with one nuance: I wouldn't say that attempting to flirt with a stranger in public is harassment per se. I would say the boundary is more like... if you attempt to flirt with someone and they make it clear they are not interested (for example, by being completely non-responsive), then you immediately accept that and politely walk away. If you carry on, refusing to take 'no' for an answer, then THAT would generally be harassment (and wrong). Your example of sitting next to a woman on an empty train - yes, totally agree - that would generally be completely weird.

I would largely agree with that. Everybody - women & men should be free to walk safely anywhere they want, day or night. Some will regard me as an ancient dinosaur, but it is fact that most men enjoy looking at attractive women, and some of them may wish to express that comment to those women -- but that does not mean that the men wish to force themselves onto those women. Even the now maligned "wolf whistle" used to be regarded as just a comment about a woman being considered attractive.

When younger, I have even been "wolf-whistled" by a woman. I regarded it as a kind of compliment, but did not have time to wait to see if she wanted to become some kind of friend.
Also, when younger, I was a victim of an attempted mugging - in Wigan town centre (the mugger lost - he seemed rather surprised when I slammed my bag into his midriff..), so it is not just women who need to feel cautious about being alone outside.

 

[southern442]

Generally agree but with one nuance: I wouldn't say that attempting to flirt with a stranger in public is harassment per se. I would say the boundary is more like... if you attempt to flirt with someone and they make it clear they are not interested (for example, by being completely non-responsive), then you immediately accept that and politely walk away. If you carry on, refusing to take 'no' for an answer, then THAT would generally be harassment (and wrong). Your example of sitting next to a woman on an empty train - yes, totally agree - that would generally be completely weird.

I would largely agree with that. Everybody - women & men should be free to walk safely anywhere they want, day or night. Some will regard me as an ancient dinosaur, but it is fact that most men enjoy looking at attractive women, and some of them may wish to express that comment to those women -- but that does not mean that the men wish to force themselves onto those women. Even the now maligned "wolf whistle" used to be regarded as just a comment about a woman being considered attractive.

When younger, I have even been "wolf-whistled" by a woman. I regarded it as a kind of compliment, but did not have time to wait to see if she wanted to become some kind of friend.
Also, when younger, I was a victim of an attempted mugging - in Wigan town centre (the mugger lost - he seemed rather surprised when I slammed my bag into his midriff..), so it is not just women who need to feel cautious about being alone outside.

Not trying to directly challenge either of you about this, as I agree it is a grey area, but if a man was to approach you in the street (perhaps someone stronger/more imposing than you to simulate the difference here) and he was to sit down right next to you and flirt with you, or wolf whistle at you, would you feel uncomfortable?

 

[hst43102]

Not trying to directly challenge either of you about this, as I agree it is a grey area, but if a man was to approach you in the street (perhaps someone stronger/more imposing than you to simulate the difference here) and he was to sit down right next to you and flirt with you, or wolf whistle at you, would you feel uncomfortable?

I would say the line is drawn just there. It's sometimes acceptable, if a little weird, to sit down and flirt with someone, but as soon as they make any signals or voice concerns about the former's behaviour, it needs to stop immediately or else it becomes harrassment.

 

[southern442]

I would say the line is drawn just there. It's sometimes acceptable, if a little weird, to sit down and flirt with someone, but as soon as they make any signals or voice concerns about the former's behaviour, it needs to stop immediately or else it becomes harrassment.

That's probably a good place to draw the line.
Similarly when it comes to sitting down on trains, one cannot deny that even if someone who sits next to you has a non-dodgy motive, it is rather uncomfortable. Obviously this does not apply to just women but I know at least one woman who has repeatedly had old men sit next to her on the bus when there were many available seats.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not trying to directly challenge either of you about this, as I agree it is a grey area, but if a man was to approach you in the street (perhaps someone stronger/more imposing than you to simulate the difference here) and he was to sit down right next to you and flirt with you, or wolf whistle at you, would you feel uncomfortable?

Already happened many years ago. Several times. Strange looking man approached me in Finsbury Park, sat on same bench, even though all the others were empty. Very creepy. My reaction was to move away quickly (but I never said a word to him.)

But on the other side, I would not intentionally sit next to an unknown woman on a train or bus unless most of the other seats were occupied. But if the only choice of seats was to sit next to a slim woman or an overweight man, I would probably sit next to the woman - but not speak to her.