The poster identifies sexual harassment as a "crime", in much larger type than the text encouraging reporting of it. Doesn't the categorization of something as a crime necessarily imply an admonition not to do the action?

I'd like to see the evolutionary psychology textbook she's read. Because none of MY sources fail to correct that misconception!

... sorry for the aggressive tone, but I think I pulled a muscle eyerolling at the ignorant comment.

Now if only all the men who spout exactly the version of ev psych to which Britt refers would actually read a textbook.

the sign very clearly states that s.h. is a crime, first and foremost. the fact is followed by an encouragement to the victim to not fall into the expected(by perp)behavior of silence; to not be embarrassed to speak up. the initial comment is a stretch.

But the call to action ("Don't stand for it...") is directed at the victim. Why doesn't it say, "A crowded train is no excuse for an improper touch. Keep your hands off your fellow passengers!"

Britt, thanks for the submission. I've seen this on the train and not paid them much mind before this post.

While it is true that the responsibility for sexual harassment on the subway is in the harassers, it doesn't follow that any notices regarding sexual harassment must only serve to condemn them.

Imagine if only notices of the "sexual harassment is bad" variety were posted on the subway, and none of the "report sexual harassment to the police" kind. Actual reporting of sexual harassment would go down, because there would be some fraction of victims who wouldn't know if it rose to the level of reportable offense, or wouldn't think it worth the trouble, or just wouldn't think to report it at all.

A potential harasser is less likely to harass in a world where they believe that potential victims will blow whistles. In this hypothetical world there would be more harassment, not less. The signs that would remain would certainly condemn, but it would be a condemnation with duller teeth. That is to say, a consistent regime of mere condemnation would probably serve to marginalize the message.

In general, signs only have power when there is some mechanism in the world behind them. That's why the "talk to an employee or police officer" is so important. It attaches the sign to a larger network that has real physical power.

I dunno...often people do need to hear "It's okay to assert your boundaries." We're so often taught that it's Not Okay, that often being reminded that it Is Okay is quite constructive, and different from "Not speaking up = consenting." I'd like to assume that this message is doing the former, but I agree that it has tendencies toward the latter, and since "it's your fault, victim" is the working assumption, it could probably use some generous skewing away from that.

"Why is the message not - don’t sexually assault people?! Instead of reprimanding perpetrators of sexual assault (most frequently men), this poster places the responsibility on the person who is being assaulted (usually a woman)."

Because it's *always* a woman's job to do or avoid doing something, and never a man's job to act like an adult. As Britt mentions, implicit in such statements is the suggestion that men just can't help it, or can't be expected to behave otherwise, so it's women's job to do it instead. ("rape prevention" lists, aside from exhibiting nothing that will actually prevent rape, do the same thing).

That said, I don't think this particular sign is that bad (though I agree that it does still aid in the normalization of sexual assault, I doubt anyone but feminists will recognize that fact). Women do internalize the message that it's our fault, not to rock the boat, men just can't help it, etc. so stating that a victim should say something, that the law is on their side (though I wonder if the MTA employee will be), etc., is no bad thing.

It seems likely that the reason the sign is directed most towards the victim is because everyone knows that sexual harassment/assault is wrong and they shouldn't do it. I doubt putting a sign up would make potential sexual assailants reconsider, whereas it is likely to help victims of sexual assault feel less isolated and encourage them to report the crime.

Any sign is a normalization. There aren't signs that say: "Don't eat humans, they are the one animal you are not supposed to eat" because it's simply too taboo, too abnormal to even be brought up.
In Japan there are separate cars just for women. In some countries women cover themselves head to toe and have to be escorted everywhere outside the home. Different cultures have different ways of dealing with it. Signs are this cultures way.

"please sexual assaulters, don't sexually assult people, it is bad". Not only pointless but innefective. You think a sign will stop a person from doing something that the is already against the law? Saying it "completely normalizes" sexual harassment is an enormous stretch, for starters because it sets it as something bad.

And what was that attack at evolutionary psychology? Another enormous stretch reading that kind of message just from a sign.

Sexual assault often goes unreported, & moreover, there is often a stigma associated with "admitting" to being the victim of sexual assault. Encouraging people to step forward isn't offensive. It is essential. This isn't placing the responsibility on the victim, but EMPOWERING the victim to say "this isn't right."

Yeah-- I think this sign clearly designates sexual harrassment as a crime-- & says not to ignore it.

"It seems likely that the reason the sign is directed most towards the victim is because everyone knows that sexual harassment/assault is wrong and they shouldn’t do it."

Wow. I don't know what planet you live on, but I want to live there.

(just as a small example of how not true that is: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/03/one_in_five_bel)

++

"Saying it “completely normalizes” sexual harassment is an enormous stretch, for starters because it sets it as something bad."

An enormous stretch based on what? Your opinion? The sign does normalize sexual assault - it treats it as something that's just gonna happen, instead of aiming to prevent it.

"And what was that attack at evolutionary psychology? Another enormous stretch reading that kind of message just from a sign."

Evo-psych is routinely used to justify the worst behavior in people - in this case, specifically that men can't be expected to NOT grope women, ergo, women have to do something about it. Why can't men just not do it? Evo psycho's answer: Eh, evolution makes them do it. They can't help it. There's absolutely no other reason - just evolution. Here's my dubious, ill-conceived, badly reported study.

In Japan there are separate cars just for women. In some countries women cover themselves head to toe and have to be escorted everywhere outside the home. Different cultures have different ways of dealing with it. Signs are this cultures way.

Dealing with what, exactly? Women in public? Because women in the covered-from-head-to-toe get harrassed and assaulted as well.

“please sexual assaulters, don’t sexually assult people, it is bad”. Not only pointless but innefective. "

We wouldn't know because no one has ever targeted these campaigns at the perpetrators. Of course it wouldn't say "please" and be all nice. I imagine it would have to mention jail time and fines and other unpleasantries.

The evolutionary psychology comment is more about the entire phenomena of these types as signs, as well as the pop evo-psych that excuses away anything people do as being "hard wired"

"....I doubt anyone but feminists will recognize that fact"

Maybe this should tell you something.

"Maybe this should tell you something."

Perhaps that feminism, as a theory, directs one's attention to particular facets of phenomena, much like any other theory? That it, like other theories, sees some things and misses others?

Well sure, but that seems a bit trite to say.

I don't see the inverse of the sign as being completely ridiculous, because it would be a simple change of a few words. What I think is the issue is that this sign takes a defensive stance against sexual harassment, like those signs against pickpocketing and so forth.

For those who don't buy the argument that's being put forth in the post and by some commenters, consider this. The assumption is that "these things happen", a stance which does seem resigned to the supposed reality of strangers robbing you and/or touching you on the subway. We might see this sign thus as a result of prevailing attitudes and culture towards gender differences and crimes -- not as the cause of them.

Okay. Alby, I think it is naive to believe that sexual assaulters would restrain themselves over a sign. But here's my point, the same from before: it is already against the law, a sign is not much of a threat compared to that. How effective could it be? Don't think it would be educating or warning potential sexual assaulters. If the aim is to educate someone, don't think a sign is the proper solution.

The sign accepts that sexual assault indeed happens, because, well it happens, but it doesn't accept that it should happen. That's the whole difference, it is not being condescenting to the act, it is trying to get people to speak out against it. Asking nicely for a criminal not to commit a crime won't do a thing, but jail time or a fine might.

I've seen a lot of signs that say, "Watch your belongings, there are thieves operating in the area." Has anyone ever seen a sign that says, "Stop stealing, you asshole"?

Bueller?

And to follow up on my comment, clearly this is a reflection that property rights aren't sufficiently respected in our society, am I right? Cuz we live in a socialist society where "property is theft" and no one respects ownership.

Hmm, let's see, the law against sexual harassment can only be enforced if the harassment is reported. And gee whiz, the tricky thing about theft is that by the time you notice it, the thief is usually gone. Do feminists think that these facts play any role in determining the content of these signs?

Give me a break. Sexism is rampant and often unnoticed in our society, but these sort of "analyses" are equivalent to crying wolf.

Have any of you folks actually ridden a sub way in LA? They are scary! There are these kinds of signs all over the place, for all kinds of different things, such as theft and even no food and drinks. I've NEVER seen an "MTA Police Officer" on a train. There are occasionally some sheriff's deputies on the platforms. But once those doors close you're on your own. I've always assumed these posters were there to give riders a false sense of security, like "there are MTA employees who can help". But I have never felt more unsafe than I do on an MTA sub way. And I'm a 250 pound man with a big tough looking facial scar. I can't imagine riding the MTA subway in LA as a woman, a mere "inappropriate touch" would be the least of my worries.

I've never ridden the subway in LA, but I have ridden the subway in New York, which is where this particular sign is from. The NYC subway seems quite safe to me.

I'd like to clarify -- aside from the surface comparisons, I don't think it makes sense to compare pickpocketing to sexual harassment. A sign saying "stop pickpocketing" makes a lot less sense than "stop sexually harassing people."

A sign saying “stop pickpocketing” makes a lot less sense than “stop sexually harassing people.”

Why?

If all the signs simply said "stop sexually harassing people," then wouldn't that simply indicate that the state had no interest in enforcing the law against sexual harassment? Wouldn't the signs be oblivious to the fact that people are often reluctant to make waves about inappropriate touching? Wouldn't the signs serve as a mere fancy show about societal attitudes toward sexual harassment, while ignoring the fact that rights exist only to the extent that they are actively enforced, and that people need to report the crime in order for it to be punished?

"I can’t imagine riding the MTA subway in LA as a woman, a mere “inappropriate touch” would be the least of my worries."

You're not a woman, so please don't presume to know what would be the least of a woman's worries.

Fernando,
The argument isn't about whether or not these signs work. Do you think telling women to report sexual harassment and assault is going to "work"? (By "work" I presume you mean reduce the occurrences of sexual violence, correct me if I'm wrong.) The problem is that nearly all attempts to reduce sexual violence focus on the wrong people. I wouldn't mind this sign and the PSAs that tell women to be careful and not to fear reporting it if
1) Reported acts of sexual violence were earnestly investigated and police tried as hard as they could to catch the perpetrator and prosecute,
and
2) If there was more of an attempt to stop perpetrator from sexually assaulting people.
Maybe what we need is more youth education focused on boys or something. I don't know. I'm neither a criminologist nor a psychologist, but I do know that no campaign focused on the victim's behavior has slowed down sexual violence, and I very rarely (not never) see campaigns that focus on changing the perpetrator's behavior.

I've never felt scared or unsafe on a LA subway, and I ride just about every day. While this isn't really the point of the post or the comment thread, I just sort of feel the need to stand up for mass transit in my city. It sucks much less than its reputation would lead you to believe.

A sign saying “stop pickpocketing” makes a lot less sense than “stop sexually harassing people.”

Why?

The comparison between sexual assault (which is what touching / groping is...I'm unsure why the poster refers to groping as 'only' harrassment, but perhaps that's due to a difference in legislation) and pickpocketing is not completely valid. A pickpocket might have no other choice than to steal your money or go without food. In this case, s/he is unlikely to be moved by a sign admonishing pickpocketing.

However, there is NO situation in which groping a stranger on the subway is a necessity. So, the motivation to sexually assault someone is not going to be as strong as the motivation to steal a wallet; therefore, it will be easier to dissuade a potential groper than a potential pickpocket. This may make an anti-grope sign effective, where an anti-pickpocketing sign would be ineffective.

Of course, the only way to be sure is to do a proper study. If these signs actually increased reporting of sexual assaults / decreased actual incidences of sexual assaults (I know, nearly impossible to determine in practice, but just roll with it) then we could say the sign was effective.

I'm conflicted about the sign in the OP. I'm not opposed to encouraging victims to report sexual assault. But I think, as it stands, it is not likely to encourage women to report a sexual assault; its tone is demanding and authoritarian, like a parent admonishing misbehaving children - "don't stand for it," "[don't] feel ashamed," "[don't] be afraid to speak up," etc. It is more likely to shame those who don't report.

I would change the wording. I would emphasize that the police understand your concerns, they take groping seriously, they won't dismiss you, they value your involvement in reporting the creeps, etc. Give the victims a reason to bother reporting.

A pickpocket might have no other choice than to steal your money or go without food.

Oh what a load of horseshit. Yeah, they might have no other choice. Not very likely though, and there are clearly plenty who aren't on the verge of starvation.

I agree with the comments re: subtle tone of poster. But I don't see the sign as objectionable. Compare:

Stealing is a CRIME, in the subway, too--- A crowded train is no excuse for the loss of a personal item. Don't stand for it or feel ashamed, or be afraid to speak up. Report it to an MTA employee or a police officer.

I would read the sign as implying not that _men_ are unincorrigle sexual harrassers, but that _perps_ are.

We have these signs on the MBTA in Boston, too, and I always took this not to be a matter of placing the responsibility on the victim, but more making the point to say "In the past, we never took the issue of women getting harrassed seriously. Now we do, and promise to continue to do so in the future. So definitely let us know if some asshole needs to be cited. KKthx." That's still a sad commentary on how women are viewed, but it's a step in the right direction.

"Maybe this should tell you something."

It does tell me something. It tells me that men are often too blinded by male privilege to notice what is reality to most women. That doesn't surprise me. I'm sure you think it just means feminists are crazy bitches who make up things to complain about. That wouldn't surprise me either.

++
"Oh what a load of horseshit. Yeah, they might have no other choice. Not very likely though, and there are clearly plenty who aren’t on the verge of starvation."

Why did you completely dodge Alby's point? The point isn't that the pickpockets you've seen are (apparently) fatties who couldn't possibly be starving. The point is its incredibly sexist and demeaning to compare property crime to sexual assault. Women are not property; there is never a justifiable excuse for sexual assault or harassment.

Opps, sorry: That was Pcwhite's point.

Why are you lecturing me on pcwhite's point when you get it completely wrong yourself, Endor? pcwhite's point was that pickpocketing may be motivated by necessity while sexual harassment is never motivated by necessity, and this means that it makes more sense to de-motivate sexual harassment than it does to de-motivate pickpocketing.

Meanwhile your unrelated complaint that

The point is its incredibly sexist and demeaning to compare property crime to sexual assault. Women are not property; there is never a justifiable excuse for sexual assault or harassment.

is just flat-out stupid. The comparison between sexual harassment and pickpocketing is not based on the idea that women are property; it's based on the idea that both are crimes, and for both crimes public signs are directed towards the victims rather than the criminals.

As I said above, there is a lot of sexism in the world, and a lot of is simply taken for granted. But guess what: idiots who use feminism as a cover for their inability to formulate coherent thoughts give feminism a bad name. So please don't think you're helping the cause.

Alby, I think it is like Paul said, the sign raises awareness that it is a reportable offense, and I think that in this case it is easier to get people to report a crime than to get people to stop commiting the crime. Besides... the sign also says that it is a crime, this is a way of warning possible pervs who might otherwise not even think about possible consequences.

But you know, if the person is still groping others, signs or whatever won't make much of a difference. If there's already enough disresgard to others in the action itself, I don't think there'll be respect for a sign.

Also, to return to this remarkable pseudo-feminist comment again:

The point is its incredibly sexist and demeaning to compare property crime to sexual assault. Women are not property; there is never a justifiable excuse for sexual assault or harassment.

1. The victim in a "property crime" is not property, but a person. When someone steals your passport and wallet, the victim isn't the passport and wallet, it's you. Furthermore, property crime is generally experienced as a violation of self, and it is rarely sufficient comfort that the thief may have been close to starving to death (but probably wasn't).

2. The idea of ranking crimes based on whether or not they could theoretically be justified in some possible scenario is plain dumb. There's never any excuse for sticking a wad of gum on someone's back, but not infrequently someone who kills another person does so in self-defense. So what?

"It does tell me something. It tells me that men are often too blinded by male privilege to notice what is reality to most women. That doesn’t surprise me. I’m sure you think it just means feminists are crazy bitches who make up things to complain about. That wouldn’t surprise me either."

Actually, I think it means that a group of ideologically driven, hyper-sensitive individuals with a huge bone to pick with half the population simply for their mere existence just might be seeing something that isn't there.

How the hell does telling someone to report a crime normalize that crime? Cops aren't everywhere and frankly I don't want security cameras in every public space - so how are the authorities going to know someone just committed a crime unless someone actually, you know, kind of decides to tell them. Where you are seeing nonexistent sexism, I see a societal emphasis on punishing crime instead of preventing it. But then again, I'm not surprised that someone blinded by ideology might not see what is reality for everyone else. I'm sure you think this means men are just ignorant assholes who want nothing more than to rape, fondle or otherwise molest every woman they see. That wouldn't surprise me either.

Before this discussion gets too out of hand (probably a bit late for that) I think we should probably all step back and realize that our own interpretations of this, or any image, are based in ideology and theory.

This is not a conflict between one side which has intense ideological "blinders" on and one which sees all in an objective fashion. It is a debate between two perspectives, neither of which necessarily has the "full picture" (if that is indeed even accessible to anyone). Nathan, you mentioned that where you see one thing, other people see another. You're coming it at from a different theoretical basis than others, that's all.

You’re coming it at from a different theoretical basis than others, that’s all.

That's some of it, but no, that's not all. Some people are also better at employing logic than others. Not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Someone who says that comparing sexual assault to property crime is sexist because women aren't property doesn't just have a different theoretical perspective; this person is confused.

I don't think I was presuming anything. I said I can't imagine, which means I CAN'T presume. God, I KNEW someone was going ding me, I feel like I can't even respond to these posts.

What's the point of the comments if they don't promote dialog beyond the kind of self important rebukes that alby slapped me with?

Since I CAN'T presume why not tell me your thoughts? that's what I'd really like to read. Not your snide comments.

Matt -

I'm sure I am coming at it from a different theoretical basis than Endor. Were we discussing mere interpretations, I would kindly proffer my opinion, listen politely to the opinions of others and then offer a response. But we are not discussing subjectives here. An objective statement was made that this sign "normalizes" sexual harassment. That is an allegation of objective fact, not interpretation, not theory. Endor's response to me clearly states that I am blind to reality, that is, to facts. We're not playing postmodern language games here.

Well, at least some of us aren't, as Jesse points out.

OK, Ryan, here's my thought. "Mere" inappropriate touch is humiliating and demoralizing. It's also incredibly common and widely pooh-poohed. Most women have experienced a time (for some people this is a regular joy) when they're tootling along, thinking all is well with the earth and they're maybe pretty OK themselves, only to be figuratively slapped in the face by some yahoo who thinks it'd be funny to remind them that it doesn't matter who they are or what they want, their titties/ass size/underwear/kinkiness/desire to fellate the speaker can be made a subject of public discussion or surreptitious exploration AT ANY TIME. It sounds like you don't take it very seriously. You probably got dinged because you sounded dismissive. Being bullied really affects people's lives and sense of self. And the sign doesn't work BECAUSE people don't take sexualized bullying seriously.

I'm a feminist, and I'm unnerved by the comments insisting, "You’re not a woman, so please don’t presume to know what" women feel, and "I'm sure you think" blah blah blah about feminists. It's possible (and desirable) to frame disagreements with more credibility and less venom.

That aside, I notice that we're not really talking about the motivation behind these ads. alby touched on it with, "By 'work' I presume you mean reduce the occurrences of sexual violence." So, IS that what we mean by the ads "working"?

This ad reads to me like a plea for hard data. It's probably in service to the ultimate goal of reducing sexual assault on the subway, but as a bureaucratic organization, the MTA gets a picture of what goes on in its system by looking at numbers.

Surely, the MTA is aware that sexual assault happens on their trains. I haven't seen anyone here give a reason to assume that the MTA condones sexual assault, but I can see that if sexual assault is underreported, it has no chance of being sufficiently addressed.

I don't read anything "authoritarian" about the voice of the sign. It's succinct, certainly, but that's appropriate for the medium. It explicitly seeks to empower people who have been violated. Besides being too wordy for a sign, an insistence "that the police understand your concerns, they take groping seriously, they won’t dismiss you, they value your involvement in reporting the creeps, etc." seems much more paternalistic to me. This sign assumes that you'll be trusted--it's not even a question--the question is simply whether the victim will feel okay about making a report.

I think the comment is ridiculous, sorry. I don't see how this implies that it's "in men's nature" or that women are responsible for being sexually assaulted and the such -- all it implies is that if you feel unsafe, it's ok to speak out about it and report it. And I see nothing bad about that.

It IS pretty naive to assume that the assaulter will stop because of a mere sign. Most sexual abusers don't stop because you tell them to -- if they did, there would be no rape.

"It IS pretty naive to assume that the assaulter will stop because of a mere sign."

But it's not really about whether a particular (present or potential) sexual harasser will stop harassing, so much as it is about contributing to the creation of an environment in which males collectively -- particularly boys and teenagers, who are still deeply steeped in the socialization process -- come to believe that sexual harassment is not 'manly' or 'cool', but rather that it is never okay.
In this respect, the signs would be small parts of a larger, society-wide effort -- the most important part of which would be to have men (particularly respected/admired ones, like parents, teachers, celebrities, etc.) speaking out against such behaviour and modeling it in their own lives.
The more immediate advantage to the abuser-targeting signs (vs. the current victim-targeting ones) would be a reinforcement of the idea that assault is not the victims' fault. It hardly makes much of an impact to tell victims "don't be ashamed," when society, the media, and other social institutions pervasively blame and shame sexual assault victims ("She shouldn't have..."; "Well, she was wearing..."; "What else did she expect when she..."; etc.).

beaq, thanks for that one. I didn't think about the terminology there. I didn't mean to suggest that being assaulted in anyway was a small thing.

I'll just note this part of the original post:

By doing this, it completely normalizes sexual harassment.

where "doing this" is literally pointing out that sexual harassment is a crime.

Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

"Actually, I think it means that a group of ideologically driven, hyper-sensitive individuals with a huge bone to pick with half the population simply for their mere existence just might be seeing something that isn’t there."

That's what I said you would say. And, I'm still not surprised. Some boys rarely understand what feminism is, but, never stop assuming that they do. Privilege, of course, makes people blind and arrogant.

"How the hell does telling someone to report a crime normalize that crime?"

That was already covered.

"Cops aren’t everywhere and frankly I don’t want security cameras in every public space"

Cops are not everywhere and this isn't about what*you* want. Unless you're a victim of sexual harrassment, in which case, your opinion has weight.

" - so how are the authorities going to know someone just committed a crime unless someone actually, you know, kind of decides to tell them."

Where did I say one shouldn't report the crime? Oh right, nowhere.

"Where you are seeing nonexistent sexism, I see a societal emphasis on punishing crime instead of preventing it."

Of course. A *man* doesn't see sexism, therefore it doesn't exist. *lol* Goodness, it must be so easy being you. Anything you want to be true is true just because you want it to be so. Must be lovely.

" But then again, I’m not surprised that someone blinded by ideology might not see what is reality for everyone else."

And of course *I'M* wrong about this because, being a woman and a past (and probably future) victim of sexual harassment, my opinion totally can't be relied on. Only the manly man's opinion is correct - on something he likely has absolutely no experience with. I love it when you prove my point for me.

"I’m sure you think this means men are just ignorant assholes who want nothing more than to rape, fondle or otherwise molest every woman they see. That wouldn’t surprise me either."

Absolutely not. Men are not all rapists, fondlers or any other absurd nonsense you want to put in my mouth, instead of being honest. You're desperately employing some flaccid, stale old stereotypes in hopes of silencing me, because you know, as well as I do, you're treading on topics you don't understand. It won't work.

I think, as many feminists do, that men are much more than what society allows them to be (PHMT - patriarchy hurts men too). As feminists seek to break down patriarchical gender roles, that means benefits for men as well. There are a good many male feminists, or as they sometimes call themselves, allies. I happen to like men a great deal, esp my hubs. It's only cowards who are threatened by my unwillingness to be silent as they wax moronic.

++

"Why are you lecturing me on pcwhite’s point when you get it completely wrong yourself, Endor? pcwhite’s point was that pickpocketing may be motivated by necessity while sexual harassment is never motivated by necessity,"

Which is exactly what I said. Good try, though.

"and this means that it makes more sense to de-motivate sexual harassment than it does to de-motivate pickpocketing."

I disagree with that bit. Both should be "de-motivated".

"is just flat-out stupid."

*lol* of course it is. You don't see how it's offensive and demeaning, therefore, magically, it isn't! It's perfectly okay to equate the theft of property with groping a woman because that's totally not saying woman are property. Apparently.

That's some impressively convoluted logic.

"As I said above, there is a lot of sexism in the world, and a lot of is simply taken for granted."

Absolutely agreed. As is racism, ableism, etc.

"But guess what: idiots who use feminism as a cover for their inability to formulate coherent thoughts give feminism a bad name. So please don’t think you’re helping the cause."

*lol* Do you really think YOU get to decide what helps feminism, who's an idiot and what gives feminism a bad name? Seriously?

That is freaking adorably clueless. Here's a small tip though: I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me, how little you know about feminism, or how arrogant you are in assuming you get to tell me what to do. You have the right to speak you opinion, I have the right to speak mine. I truly don't care how angry, defensive and insulting you are. I won't be silent because you command me to be.

"Some people are also better at employing logic than others. Not everyone’s opinion is equally valid. Someone who says that comparing sexual assault to property crime is sexist because women aren’t property doesn’t just have a different theoretical perspective; this person is confused"

Ah, of course. The feminist is confused, because YOU have no idea what you're talking about. And your opinion is therefore more valid because you say so.

*lol* I love it.

++

"It’s possible (and desirable) to frame disagreements with more credibility and less venom."

Agreed that it's possible. Is it desirable? I'm not so sure. Rarely does anyone hear polite acquiescence.

Interesting that you are only blaming women for this and not the boys calling us names, arrogantly assuming they know what we think, telling us to be quiet and talking lots of bullshit about feminism.

Tell me, what advantage is there in telling women to be nice, play nice or others won't listen to them when others don't listen to the nice?

And Matt - thanks for being the lone voice of reason.

It’s perfectly okay to equate the theft of property with groping a woman because that’s totally not saying woman are property. Apparently.

Let. Me. Say. This. Slowly. So. That. Even. Endor. Can. Understand.

My comparison (not "equation") of property theft and sexual harassment was not based on the motivation of the criminal. If I had said that men grope women for the same reason that men steal women's purses, then I would be equating women with property.

But rather than saying that, I wrote:
The comparison between sexual harassment and pickpocketing is not based on the idea that women are property; it’s based on the idea that both are crimes, and for both crimes public signs are directed towards the victims rather than the criminals.

Both sexual harassment and property theft are crimes that create victims. In the case of property theft, people don't put up signs that tell the criminals to stop stealing. Rather, they warn potential victims that they may be at risk. Does that "completely normalize theft"? Does that mean that we live in a culture where we think stealing is no big deal? Of course not. It's a practical matter. Warning people that thieves operate in the area helps protect them.

Similarly, the sign discussed in the original post (a) actually says that sexual harassment is a crime, and so is actually at least partly directed towards criminals (b) encourages victims to report such incidents, which is actually a necessary precondition of the law being enforced.

Of course I had already clearly expressed all these points above, but you completely avoided engaging the argument, because engaging in arguments is not your strong suit. Judging from your comments, you're best at wrapping yourself in the flag of feminism and asserting that everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't get it.

"I won't be silent just because you command me to be." LOL. Yeah, take back the night, Endor! You're not getting schooled in an argument, you're just fighting back against patriarchal oppression!

Endor -

"That’s what I said you would say. And, I’m still not surprised. Some boys rarely understand what feminism is, but, never stop assuming that they do. Privilege, of course, makes people blind and arrogant."

So saying you might be reading into things is blindness and arrogance on my part but you automatically dismissing anything I have to say because of my gender makes you, what, insightful and humble? You don't know what I do or do not understand because you haven't engaged me on any level except snide remarks and scare quotes.

"That was already covered."

No, it was alleged but not proven. Try again.

"Cops are not everywhere and this isn’t about what*you* want. Unless you’re a victim of sexual harrassment, in which case, your opinion has weight. "

So now only victims of sexual harassment have any say in whether or not we turn into a surveillance society? Do you read what you're writing? You do know we live in a democracy, right and that every citizen has equal standing to voice their opinion in the public square and vote and what not? Its not just "victims." And about that, you keep harping on victim, victim, victim - where's the empowerment? It seems to me that by so clearly insisting on victim-status you are undermining the very thing you claim to be supporting.

"Of course. A *man* doesn’t see sexism, therefore it doesn’t exist. *lol* Goodness, it must be so easy being you. Anything you want to be true is true just because you want it to be so. Must be lovely. "

It is nice being me. Clear, rational thinking is a delight. As is not starting a conversation off with ad hominem attacks, which is the initial tack you've taken with everyone here who disagrees with you.

"And of course *I’M* wrong about this because, being a woman and a past (and probably future) victim of sexual harassment, my opinion totally can’t be relied on. Only the manly man’s opinion is correct - on something he likely has absolutely no experience with. I love it when you prove my point for me. "

And me being a man my opinion doesn't count no matter what, right? But thanks for assuming I'm a manly man. My immature male ego needs a good stroking every once in a while.

"...because you know, as well as I do, you’re treading on topics you don’t understand. It won’t work."

Lady, seriously, you call me arrogant? Really? Disagreement means I don't understand. Who just absolutely must be right here by virtue of their gender? "Pot, this is kettle, come in. You're black. Over."

"It’s only cowards who are threatened by my unwillingness to be silent as they wax moronic."

I'm not particularly threatened by you, me being a manly man and all, you know, us manly men being so willing to resort to violence and physical intimidation when our tired, underdeveloped, moronic brains just can't keep up with an *intelligent* woman. And now disagreement equals waxing moronic.

Insightful and humble.

Wow, everybody got started without me on this one! And I swear none of the above comments were mine, though you might think so considering the nym I use.

Jesse: Endor is a self-contradictory femtroll. Ignore it and live happily ever after. On second thought, please continue to address the lunacy as your last comment was... well, I'm still laughing. BTW: I just made up the word 'femtroll' (but probly ain't the first) and hope its intended meaning is as self-evident as I think it is.

Alrighty then. I'd be curious what the comments would be like had the sign been posted all by itself (with no initial commentary). Since the majority of subway riders are commuting to or from work, the sign looks to me like an attempt to equate being harassed on the subway with being harassed in the workplace (why it's a crime "in the subway, too" and not just "a crime"). Many if not most of the subway commuters work in large companies, and most of these have sexual harassment policies that employees and all new hires are made aware of, including the procedure for reporting it. In other words, I am assuming the sign was not created to address subway riders who believe being on the subway somehow makes them exempt from all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.

Anyway, I have vividly seen how training in one context doesn't necessarily equate to performance in another, so maybe this sign was just an attempt to remind people that there is a reporting procedure for it happening in public, too. Someone who would not hesitate to file a complaint against an employer might not even think to do anything about a groping on the subway, and this was just a reminder, like those posters in every office informing employees about the ADA, the minimum wage, some sundry Federal and State nonsense, and...sexual harassment(!)

Riding the subway is just like being anywhere else in public, more or less, and everyone occupying public space should maintain situational awareness and consider that anyone they encounter is a potential predator of some kind, especially any who approach unbidden. It is also wise to understand one's own abilities and limitations, and seek to minimize exposure to risk. That goes for everyone, even a big fella packing a .357 Magnum and feeling invincible but neglecting to consider some muggers have accomplices as he obliviously swaggers on in to an unfamiliar scene. I say that to minimize a backlash of accusations that I'm blaming the victim when I say ALL of us need to take steps to prevent being victimized. They don't always work (it's a game of probabilities), but the idea that we should all be able to walk alone safely anywhere at any time is nice and all that but it's a delusional pipe-dream that can get people killed. Or sexually harassed, as it were. If the subway is so crowded as to make prevention through awareness impossible, then other forms of transportation should be explored. We have a legal right and expectation to ride packed subways free from harassment, but we ought to have some common sense and a practical expectation of a high probability of being groped or pickpocketed in that context.

And c'mon, someone preparing to commit an assault is not reading these damned signs. They're staring fixedly at your purse/wallet/ass/etc. It's worthwhile to work to change the status quo, but it's potentially fatal stupidity to act or pretend like it's already been changed as a way to encourage it along. So leave the signs up and know what's going on around you. If your ass gets grabbed anyway, well then report it or shove a ballpoint pen in the perp's eye or whatever is appropriate and watch out closer next time. It wasn't your fault, just like a brick falling off a building and hitting you in the head isn't your fault, but the fact remains your ass was grabbed/ your skull was cracked. You probably don't want that to happen again, so you begin to look over your shoulder (or up) more often. It's all about steering the probabilities toward your favor, and I'm not speaking theoretically so what 'should' be true is irrelevant.

Oops, forgot one thing.

Quote from Britt:"Why is the message not - don’t sexually assault people?!"

Because the subject of the sign is sexual harassment?

I don't understand why men are here shouting down women and calling women stupid, idiots, and trolls. Is this supposed to somehow prove that there is no need for feminist analysis?

pg -- here's a feminist analysis for you: your assumption that an individual woman cannot actually be a stupid idiot troll is highly sexist. I don't see anyone arguing that there is no need for feminist analysis, just that Endor makes ridiculous comments. If we are going to buy Endor's assertion that criticizing Endor is equivalent to attacking feminism and women in general, then that seems like a quite sad result. Feminism is a valuable school of thought, not an excuse to make bad arguments without reproach.

I mean, what's with this "logic is male oppression" nonsense?

I also wondered about the flip-side of this sign: Does it make men feel paranoid? A lot of touching goes on in a crowded train, almost all of it unintentional and some accidental contact could be deemed inappropriate. If a woman reports being "improperly" touched, what happens then? Is the one she accuses automatically arrested? Oh crap, that means I'd better stand really still and keep my hands on something appropriate!

Unlike most other contexts, in a dense crowd it's possible that I could improperly touch someone (man or woman... or child) purely by accident, so proving intent would be extremely difficult without a witness (which is almost impossible on a packed subway car) though the accusation could be very damaging.

Ultimately, this sign may well make everyone who sees it paranoid (in step with many government efforts nowadays); women are made to think about being sexually harassed and start looking around for potential perps and men become hyper-aware of where their hands are and who they're standing next to. But the chronic gropers just keep right on groping, and the pickpockets keep on picking (btw: pickpocketing is a professional criminal skill that takes years of dedicated practice and is rarely if ever possessed and used by someone stealing merely in order to eat).

pg: I called one individual in particular a troll, and I do not know Endor's gender (anyone can claim anything on the interweb; reality is what you can get away with). If Endor is a genuine feminist, then Endor is not doing the feminist perspective any good and so is a de facto troll, if not an intentional one. And what makes you think I'm a man?

I don't like the assumption that the victim would think that a crowded train would be an excuse for an improper touch. One wouldn't even think of the fact of a train being crowded as being part of it. I believe the the sign misses when it tries to address the harasser through the victim.

In the bathroom of many stores a sign is posted: "Shoplifters will be prosecuted." It addresses the the wrongdoer. It warns of an adverse outcome to bad behavior.

Also, "Sexual Harassment is a crime on the subway, too" sounds a little catty. Be serious.

"I don’t like the assumption that the victim would think that a crowded train would be an excuse for an improper touch."

My guess is it's the perp who would blame the crowded train if confronted after touching someone, and the victim may often doubt the excuse but unless the harassment was egregious the truth of the matter on a crowded subway could be ambiguous enough to make the victim unsure of the perp's intent and hesitant to report it.

What would probably be more likely to convince someone to report an incident would be a reminder that even a very minor improper touch with no evidence or witnesses is worth reporting since the police can check out the suspect and if there has been numerous complaints against an individual it could cause an action to be taken (arrest, restraining order to stay off the subway, etc.) even if there was no direct evidence in a particular case... But that would be hard to make into a small sign written at a 4th Grade level (the reading comprehension level most often used in advertising).

Or maybe just post a sign that says "Frottage is a crime." Most frottage aficionados will know what it means when they see it, but it does violate the 4th Grade advertising rule so not all will.

Ambient: "In the bathroom of many stores a sign is posted: “Shoplifters will be prosecuted.” It addresses the the wrongdoer. It warns of an adverse outcome to bad behavior."

... Because it wouldn't make sense for the store to warn the victim of the crime--which, in the case of shoplifting, is the store itself.

It's not that we shouldn't study public communication to see what it says about our society, but when you read "SH is a crime" but HEAR "we don't care about SH," and when you read "Don't stand for it or feel ashamed, or be afraid to speak up" but you HEAR "Victims, it's your fault," then you're in emotional, unscientific territory.

Interestingly, I have recently seen a number of public signs warning people not to do grubby things to other people (anti-harassment messages among them). Are there studies readily skimmable by slugs such as me which might suggest how different approaches to public service signage actually affect outcomes? (I'm thinking about anti-bullying signage in schools, for example, but I know the enforcement environment is different.)

@ryan -- Figgered. Didn't mean to stomp the point into the ground.

I live in Brooklyn and take the subway every day. Last month, an older man looked down my blouse the entire time I was reading a book, and when I stood up to exit, he caressed the side of my breast with his hand while he was "getting out of the way". I turned to him and smiled, and said, "hey there, come with me." He obviously thought it was a positive reaction, because he smiled and followed me. I brought him up to the information desk and told the attendant inside, "this man sexually harassed me in the train," and the attendant called over a police officer who took our information and gave the man a ticket. His face was priceless.

Ironically, instead of feeling validated, I am now afraid that the man saw my information (name and/or address) and is plotting retaliation.

I find this PSA laughable, considering it's coming from the same company that backed up two of it's employees for not helping a woman while she was being raped right in front of them.

I think both the admonition against the crime and the encouragement to speak out should be emphasized. So the sign should not just leave it to the victims, but also to make clear to harassers not to harass and that it is a crime that is punishable.

Victims need to feel empowered; criminals need to feel disempowered.

I am at a total loss for why anybody would find the MTA sign offensive. It acknowledges that sexual harassment on trains is a problem, and informs riders that the transit authority is actively looking to reduce the amount of groping that happens on its trains. And it is actively seeking to reduce groping by validating victims feelings of violation and not only encourages them to report their harassment, but actively lets them know that they Will be Taken Seriously-which is especially important since many who do not report sexual harassment stay silent because they don't think anyone will believe them, or take action.

This ad doesn't normalize violence against women or strip them of agency. However, an ad in a subway that reads "Hey Men! Stop Groping Ladies, its wrong" does. Such an ad would suggest that men are mindless harassers, women passive recipients of violation, and there isn't anything women can do to protect themselves. It suggests that the authorities don't care.

I also fail to see any victim bashing. There is no commentary in the wording or image in the sign suggesting that it is the victims fault that she is being touched inappropriately. The logic used to bash the sign suggest that any information about reporting sexual harrassment to the authorities is victim bashing-which is just ridiculous.

I can see why many women would appreciate the information that they will be safe in reporting a sexual assault; if I have already been victimized, I want to know that the man to whom I report the assault will take it as seriously as I do, and not comment on what I'm wearing/how busy he is/how much worse it could have been. Have you ever tried to report inappropriate touching to a bouncer in a club or bar, where the behaviour really is expected?
I can also see a variety of ways to send that message, without making the victim responsible for "dealing with" sexual harassment, without assuming that it is definitely going to happen and we had better be prepared for it and without letting the perpetrators pass by this "women's issue" without at least thinking about it.
"Sexual harrassment is a crime. We take reports of verbal harassment and unwanted touching seriously. Sexual harrassers will be prosecuted"
much like signs that read "shoplifters will be prosecuted."
"Verbal harrassment and unwanted touching are prohibited by law. If you engage in sexual harrassment, you will be reported to security and we will assist the assaulted person in prosecuting you" rather like "smoking is prohibited in this area. Persons caught smoking will be fined $5000" (the added benefit of this version is that it doesn't let the witnesses of sexual asault off the hook from reporting it).
"Sexual harrassment is a crime! If you see someone making lewd comments or unwanted physical advances at another passenger, call security immediately. We will take your report seriously, and the criminal will be prosecuted" like the sign we see that say "do you see suspicious terrorists with bombs? Call security!"
A sign saying "please don't be a rapist" may not do any good, but a clear message that people who commit sexual assault will be seen, reported and prosecuted would send them elsewhere to look for vulnerable, consequence-free victims. A sign aknowledging that it happens all the time, that no one but the victim will care and that it is often not reported might encourage more women to speak up after the event, but it won't stop it happening in the first place. Why should women be responsible for "dealing with" sexual assault (stop him before he assaults anyone else!) when the rest of the community is resigned to the fact that sexual assault will just keep happening (stop him before he assaults someone?)? When every woman is vulnerable to attack and nearly every perpetrator is a man, this is hardly a victim's issue or a women's issue. Engaging violent men and the community at large is necessary to making it stop.

I should add: a clear message coupled with consistent action backing up that message will send the perpetrators packing. If the sign lies, they will eventually figure it out.
Also: the "line" between harrassment and assault is fuzzy in terms of popular understanding. Pinching my butt may seem like "harmless" or "mere" harrassment to some, but I am definitely going to consider it an assault and react accordingly, whether it causes physical damage or not. Likewise, I would consider most verbal "harrassment" to be threats of violence, since the perpetrator is not taking my consent into account. I don't like the idea that women should have a lighter reaction to "harrassment" than to "assault" and "rape."

Understanding men is easy, you just need to know what men want women to know. If you want to learn to understand them, you should check out this ---->http://whatmenwantwomentoknow.blogspot.com/

interesting post really but what men want women to know? Men are simple, just learn how to understand them, for some tips check out ---> this

BEFORE MEN DEVELOPED OFFENDED VIRTUE

In the 1960’s, before men ever heard of “sexual harassment”, there was a gigantic Sexual revolution. Male secretaries trotted off to work in micro mini skirts, see thru jock straps and Play Girl stag ears. The male secretaries threw all caution to the wind. They fucked their female bosses because it was the “in thing” and stuck their tongue up every vagina in sight. Hillary Hefner, that great sexual revolutionary, thoroughly approved. The behavior of the male secretaries had consequences. Women got the bright idea that male secretaries were sex objects. They tickled those dangling testicles in see thru jock straps, patted the male secretaries on the butt and raised their skirts so that the male secretaries could give it to them. The male secretaries, bimbo brains all, see no correlation between their own behavior and their self-created problem. They archly proclaim that no matter how brazen their balls, this does not give women the right to feel them up, stare at the dick or wiggle their tongue obscenely. Men are entitled to act like whores but must always be treated as gentlemen.

WOMEN MUST WEAR CHASTITY BELTS

A female sports reporter is now an alleged victim of “sexual harassment” by rowdy football players in a New York Jets locker room. The woman, a Miss Saenz, is known for displaying her extremely beautiful buttocks in obscenely tight pants while conducting interviews. The players were doing nothing more than whistling at the goodies. The incident is much ado about nothing. Just to illustrate the massive hypocrisy involved, reverse the behavior of the genders. A man is walking down the street in a see through jock strap with his testicles and ten inch dick fully visible. A woman walks past and shouts:”Nice dick! I should suck it!” The man sues for “street harassment”. The woman, standing before the judge in her see thru bra sneers: “He should keep it in his pants if he doesn’t like it”. The man retorts that he has the right to parade his balls in public anytime he feels like it but she should control her urge to comment on his obscene behavior. Men have sexual freedom; women must wear chastity belts.

Hormonal harassment is the tort of giving men unwanted erections or creating a hostile, testicular distress inducing environment by showing off tits and ass in any way, shape or form. Make it retroactive to their goddamn microminiskirts and see thru bras of the 1960's and shove the concept up their exposed, thong decorated ass.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.limeliters.net/graphics/vikki_dougan.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.limeliters.net/vikki_dougan.html&h=418&w=248&sz=20&tbnid=W_U9_HE9JBEyJM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=74&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dvikki%2Bdougan%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=vikki+dougan&hl=en&usg=__XqT6a-urOx9Qz-r82Qa4lLPgDlA=&sa=X&ei=RAe5TbaCMIjEsAPrn_CBCA&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q9QEwAg

An entire concept destroyed with one simple image.

As a New Yorker with a story concerning this topic, I feel compelled to share. My roommate was coming home on the 7 train and felt a hand on her. She turned around and an old man was sitting down behind her looking away. She figured it was accidental, but then felt it again. She thought about not saying anything, thinking that it would make her look crazy, but then thought better of it.

"Keep your hands to yourself, pervert!"

The entire train looked over, and she just stared at him. He looked around and then got up to leave at the next stop. Later in the year we saw one of these signs for the first time. I half-joked about how the sign should read, "Women, dress with greater propriety so men aren't tempted to touch you." She told me her story and then said that it wasn't the first time, and that she felt like she was not in a position to call someone out because touching does happen on a train. This sign made her feel as if she was in the right, that on a crowded train it is everyone's responsibility not to make unwanted, inappropriate contact.

My point is that the sign doesn't decry touching because the problem it is addressing is the lack of conviction that women feel reporting unwanted touching because they don't want to seem as if they're flinging accusations around. This is supposed to reassure them that they are in the right, that they don't have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt every time they're touched, and that inappropriate touching in a train will not be excused at all.