Uh huh.
A guy called Karim Metwaly, who clearly gets to wear a T shirt and baseball cap without expecting harassment, did a video of a woman walking in Manhattan first in leggings and a T shirt and then in full hijab and a long black robe. Guess what.
Uh huh.
I strongly believe women have the right to dress in which ever way they want and also believe that guys play a major role, they should not talk in disgusting ways and should lower their gaze. This video was in no way a survey or an accurate representation and should not be considered as such. This video was done as an experiment and these were the results with no tampering or editing trickery. Footage that was left out due to time does not change the outcome represented in this video. This video was made to respect women of any kind who dress in anyway. Please feel free to share. – Karim Metwaly
No I don’t think it was. I think that’s bullshitting. I think it was made to claim that if women would only wear tents and head-bandages, they would not be harassed, and that women who don’t dress that way and do get harassed are getting harassed on purpose.
The dishonest narrative of “consequences” is a running theme among conservatives of all stripes. Oh no, they don’t want to CONTROL what you do, goodness no! They just expect you to accept the CONSEQUENCES that go with it. That’s always the way it’s phrased. Passively phrased, to avoid the accountability that comes with that stance. Those consequences are just natural, you see. You’re free to dress how you like, you just have to accept that there are consequences. You’re free to have sex, you just have to accept the consequences. We support your freedom, we just think you should accept the consequences. It’s not us that’s forcing this on you. You’re bringing it on yourself.
.
And notice how those things that have consequences so conveniently line up with things the conservatives think people should be PUNISHED for. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. Why else would they so adamantly oppose anything and everything that might somehow remove those consequences? Why else oppose efforts to reduce harassment and abuse? Why else oppose efforts to educate people about safe sex? Because you can’t remove those consequences or else people aren’t getting what they DESERVE. If you dress immodestly, you deserve to be harassed, molested, or raped. If you have extra-marital sex, you deserve to get STDs or pregnant. That’s what it’s really about.
.
They hide their desire to punish people under the guise of responsibility. They don’t want to take anybody’s freedoms away, they just want people to use them responsibly. Conveniently, chastisements about responsibility never extend to the people who use their freedom of speech to harass and abuse others, or use their freedom of religion to browbeat others into conformity, or use their freedom of privacy to hide their identity while stalking and terrorizing others. You know, the people who are actually hurting others rather than just offending someone else’s personal religious sensibilities.
.
You’re free to do whatever you want, as long as it’s exactly what they want. And if you don’t do what they want then you
have to be punishedbetter take responsibility and accept the consequences.I bet if a woman was guarded by two big chechen full contact karate experts with baseball bats, she would get much less harassment regardless of what she wore or looked like. Therefore, wingnuts like Metwaly would be better off learning how to act as bodyguards…
Or, wait … I just “realized” that my idea involves changing the behavior of the harassers not the women. Maybe we could extend that concept without the threat of violence?
They just expect you to accept the CONSEQUENCES that go with it
… the consequences they presuppose are appropriate. For example if the consequence of making inappropriate comments to a woman was that she kicks your teeth out, that wouldn’t be OK, for some reason I am sure they could explain. In other words it’s always the less powerful/less privileged person that is expected to cede ground, not the other way around.
And that’s conservatism in a nutshell, isn’t it? Preservation of authority’s privilege by trying to convince the weaker party that authority’s desire trumps their rights. As long as they are the authority, that is.
Addendum to previous:
In other words, conservatives continue to fail to understand the golden rule.
I used to think Kant (and Rawls) was kind of silly for trying to establish a philosophical system building support under the golden rule, but now I realize that it’s not quite as glaringly obvious to some people. Maybe it does need more explanation, after all.
Authoritarian followers who want everyone to bend to authority’s privilege are building a world in which they will eventually be bending to authority’s privilege, themselves. It’s submission. They forge their own slave chains while cheerfully fantasizing someone weaker than themselves wearing them.
And block quote fail. My apologies.
Melwaty will love that as that concept already exists in Islam – women cannot be in public without approved male guardians or mahram. Rather than modifying the behaviour of harassers, it is a further infringement of the liberty of muslim women.
Ophelia, OT but have you been following the goings on in Malaysia recently? Religious intolerance being racheted up. Numerous incidents in the past few weeks only. From the furore over the dogpetting incident (organised by a liberal muslim) to the fatwa issued against Sisters in Islam, for being too liberal (or deviant, like the christians and jews) to the mullahs being up in arms against a (civil) court ruling which pushed back sharia law which targets muslim transgender people. Things are getting very ugly here.
Women covered up get as frequently sexually abused and harassed as uncovered women. Lots of Egyptian data for that. Karim metwaly is a duplicitous asshole.
Perhaps the filmmaker should augment this series for comparison.
Dressed as a school teacher, a shop assistant, an executive level business woman, a bank/insurance clerk, a uniformed bus driver. Not hard to get a few women together to choose typical outfits/accessories for those occupations in the relevant city/area.
Perhaps not. Might have to use a more realistic narrative. Can’t have ordinary women’s realities getting in the way of a good script, can we.
This.
@themadtapper, 1:
Maybe they picked it up from here (3rd panel): http://xkcd.com/1357/
Or here: https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2014/04/30/private-speech-and-public-consequences/
Or here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/10/15/sunday-sacrilege-free-speech-is-not-freedom-from-responsibility/
Or comments like number 42 here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/10/15/sunday-sacrilege-free-speech-is-not-freedom-from-responsibility/
“You’re free to do what you want, you’re not free of the consequences of that choice” is a narrative used by both left and right. Whether you regard either side’s use of it as egregious or dishonest is probably dependent on which side you agreed with in any case.
Women covered up get as frequently sexually abused and harassed as uncovered women. Lots of Egyptian data for that. Karim metwaly is a duplicitous asshole.
Nearly every women in Egypt is totally covered and yet harassment, SEVERE harassment, continues apace. It often goes far beyond cat calls and involves unwanted touching and groping. Also, the stats for the pourcentage of women harassed in Egypt is just over the top.
Just another variation on the “see what you made me do!?” defense.
@10
Ditto for other conservative countries like India
#7
miraxpath, thanks for mentioning this. I had not heard of it, or even that petting a dog is ‘unclean’ to Muslims. So having a pet doggie is not allowed for a young child of Muslim parents? Yet another reason why Islam is an idea that needs to go away.
mirax, I wasn’t aware of the dogpetting incident, but I did (belatedly) learn of and post about the fatwa on Sisters in Islam, a few days ago. I was hoping you would see it and comment on it.
The video starts with a number of cases where a man walks the other way and looks back after he passes her by, without saying anything. Tells you something about the attitude of the video maker that that would be somehow considered worth putting in a harrassment montage.
Yuck, there’s something fucked up about that video. “You be the judge”? Of what?
There’s an inherent Just-World Hypothesis about it. Oh, something bad happened to you? Well, you must be a bad person somehow. You messed up. Bad!
And though I have no experience with this, I was under the impression that women in hijabs and headscarves in America DO get harassed and/or dismissed for wearing a hijab. Like it might not be street harassment, but I thought there are serious costs to wearing that in American society.
Wow I didn’t realise as a guy that when I walk down the street and see an attractive bloke I’m meant to say things like “Are you interested?” and “I lick c**k” at them. Nor did I realise that if I saw those men walking down the street as they wear a full-length dress and head covering I should suddenly feel immune from such new-found impulses. And furthermore, if I see such a man I should feel uninhibited about calling their clothing tents and head bandages because insulting people who choose for themselves to wear such attire on any part of the planet is perfectly okay isn’t it? Two wrongs make a right I suppose.
All these new social codes for a simple soul like me to learn, I don’t think I will ever get it right!
Click-delete.
Let’s be honest here. Yeah, it’s pretty probable that he made the vid assuming from the start that a woman wearing hijab wouldn’t get harrassed. But I think he was thinking more “Ha! Look at this, Americans. Guess your dress norms for women aren’t all that superior and liberating after all, huh?” rather than “I want to force women to wear certain clothes.” Being discriminated for being a Muslim living in a Western country can get you thinking like that.
And did she get harrassed less? Yup. Though it’s important to realize the probable reason why: islamophobia (and xenophobia in general). People don’t talk to her in nijab because they’re thinking “Bah, a Muslim woman. That’s not my thing.” or “What weird shit is that girl wearing?” This would obviously not be a factor in countries like Egypt or India, where this look is perfectly normal for women. But in the civilized, crowded parts of America, you can wear hijab to avoid harrassments. An important addendum, however: wearing hijab can make you a target for harrassments if you go out in a non-crowded area where people might not feel inhibited to show their islamophobia and misogyny in blatant ways.
Also, “wear tents and head-bandages”? Wow, really great way of phrasing that. Really tolerant, I must say.