no way am i saying touching is ok,

repetition, following, raising your voice to be heard as the person walks farther away is not ok.

men dont get it anyway, but gay guys dont congregate on corners and catcall men and offer comments, while men also dont dress up accentuating their crotches and butts while complaining that they just want to be left alone but hypocritically dress in high heels with bellybutton rings, makeup, thongs, and nuts pressed up or hanging out of their pants.

90% of the women surveyed experienced street harassment, the other study says 100% of them...huh?

those statistics are way off, because i dont offer my pinga to any old hobag whoorah, about 60% of da hags out there are too butt ugly to deserve my attention.

got dat azz booming? ya boobies hanging out for the world to see, lookin all crazy wit doze high heels, yeah you dont want the attention, right thats why you look like a ho.

About your last sentence, Some women (of all ages) do dress for attention.

I guess it is difficult to figure out who it will offend and who will soak it up.

Giving a compliment or a "I think I'm in love" statement is OK in my book.

Following, touching or repeated unwelcome remarks is nasty.

There is a line to be drawn.

MAN UP, BOYS!

The woman in your life are being disrespected. Don't fall for scrotum-shriveling "hidden PC agenda" nonsense - the agenda is to stop harassment.

Comments on this thread show just how much ya'll need to be educated in respecting your mother - harassment is not okay, and any man whoose okay with it is pretty much a failed Y chromosome.

and in other news...SEXY NUNS!

Well, it's pretty clear by the comments here that many men are out of touch. I used to have to deal with this every day in the Bronx while walking between the train and work, and vice versa. The comments ranged from ridiculous to aggressive, but it always left me feeling terrible. Women shouldn't have to feel threatened just trying to get to work or their homes. Thankfully, the area where I work has cleaned up a lot in recent years, but it still happens.

Any asshole that thinks that we women should just deal with this and keep quiet should probably consider moving out of their caves. This type of behavior is an embarrassment to our city. Now, I'm not saying this doesn't happen in other places (I've been to many places in Latin America, so I've experienced it elsewhere), but it really isn't that common in other cities of the developed world. Here, there are plenty of neanderthals who apparently still think it's the 19th century. It's time to evolve.

For real. It happens non-stop, everywhere in the city and is really traumatizing. You don't need to be showing skin to get harassed. I think the use of "terrorism" is accurate if it terrifies you.

As if we weren't already fucked - now it's official; this is the end of days. Time to denounce my Atheist beliefs and embrace the coming rapture!

When politically correct ass carrots are elected, ignoring substantial and significant issues, this is what you get for legislation.

creep

Political correctness is the new fascism with a smiley face.

You said it! Where do these women get off trying to encourage people not to bug them on the street! What a bunch of fascists. This is America and I'll harrass anybody I want.

Also, the other day somebody actually told me I should stop calling people from China, Japan and Korea "Orientals." I mean, can you believe it? It's my RIGHT to use whatever terminology I please.

Also, you aren't supposed to say "colored people" but you are supposed to say "people of color"? What the fuck? How can I even live in a world like this, it's like Orwell but worse because it's real and also a million times more severe.

Being free means never, ever being told what to do, by anybody. Anything less than that is FASCISM.

"Being free means never, ever being told what to do, by anybody. Anything less than that is FASCISM."

In your sarcasm, you finally got it right.

I think you're getting a bit carried away in your mocking of twentyfive25.

If this was simply a case of a group of women (or men for that matter) "encouraging men not to bug them on the street," then you would be right to imply that the poster is being overly reactionary. But it's not - it is a case of elected officials wasting time and [the taxpayers'] money talking about taking action against what is effectively just "bad manners."

I agreet that it is completely unacceptable (to me at least) for guys to say nasty stuff in public. But unfortunately the first ammendment supposedly protects our right to say things, even unpleasant things. As long as these men are just SAYING things, I don't see why any arm of government should be involved.

Meanwhile, with regards to your other points (which are very tangential but interesting nonetheless).

I've never understood the fuss abput using the term "oriental". It comes from an old word for "eastern" (I believe, but I might be wrong), and as such I think is perfectly appropriate to use when referring to Chinese, Japanese and Koreans collectively. I think it is preferable to using the commonly used term "Asian", which is a lot more ambiguous (i.e. when people in the US say "Asian" they don't mean Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi, even though these people are from Asia too).

People of color vs Colored people is a particularly stupid issue in my opinion. I'm not particularly bothered about it though, since as far as I know there aren't any politicians forming panels and committees to decide which term is preferable. That decision was made entirely by Halle Berry I believe.

But it's not - it is a case of elected officials wasting time and [the taxpayers'] money talking about taking action against what is effectively just "bad manners."

Except...

1) It's the city council. In the absolute best cases they are only marginally relevant. They are a waste of tax dollars by definition.

2) What they propose is actually modest and sensible, basically a city-endorsed PR campaign against this behavior. They aren't creating new laws or a new NYPD mandate. It's not going to cost a lot of money. (Seriously, imagine they blew $8 mil on it, which they probably won't, even. That's one whole dollar out of every NYkers pocket. Who cares.) I don't see how it is different from the Parks Service putting up signs that say "don't litter." (Is that a waste of tax dollars to address a problem that is "mere sloppiness"?)

In no sense is the idea that street harassment is a problem "political correctness," whatever that even means. As evinced by some female posters here it is actually a real issue that impacts their quality of life.

As for the other examples, I just cited them to show how trivial the label "politically correct" has become. Who cares if somebody tells you you should say "Asian" instead of "Oriental," why would you cry FASCISM over that. (Since you are English I suspect you are somewhat deaf to how out-of-date it really sounds in the US context.) Or, here's an example - I have an uncle who was recently incredulous and indignant that "biracial" was considered a much better term than "Mulatto." I mean duhuh, that's pretty obvious.

Essentially, almost any effort to shape public behavior has been branded "politically correct" regardless of how innocuous or sensible it actually is.

"It's the city council. In the absolute best cases they are only marginally relevant. They are a waste of tax dollars by definition"...true...but I guess this would lead me to say maybe we should scrap the city council, or at least find it something worthwile to do, or severely reduce their salaries etc, rather than accepting that it's OK for them to indulge in public etiquette campaigns.

"What they propose is ... basically a city-endorsed PR campaign against this behavior"

I have no problem with their particular message (I think it's a good one). But I don't think City government should be the ones to spread this message. Obviously a lot of people feel strongly about this issue - surely there must be some kind of advocacy group who could afford to put up some billboards using donations rather than taxpayer money? If PETA can afford fund anti-animal cruelty campaigns, surely there are similar groups who could take the same approach with this matter.

"It's not going to cost a lot of money"...true, but the same could be said of a LOT of public expenditure. Cumulatively it all adds up.

I agree that street harrasment is more than a simple matter of "political correctness", and shouldn't be accepted or condoned. I'd be happy to donate to some public-education campaign if asked. I just don't like the idea of tax-funded political talking-shops involving themselves in this kind of issue.

As to the issue of Asian vs Oriental. I'm not deaf to how "out-of-date" it sounds, I just don't care. I'm not going to stop using a specific and useful word just because of some current trend. Until someone (a) comes up with a word that is equivalent in meaning to "Oriental" [and Asian is certainly not], or (b) explains why "Oriental" is offensive in any way, I'll keep on using it. I don't accuse anyone of being a Fascist for discouraging my use of the word oriental. (As an aside, the over-use of the phrase "Fascist" to refer to things that have nothing to do with 1930s-40s Italian politics is something else that bugs me).

Your issue about Mulatto I can agree with. It obviously has offensive undertones because it means "mule", and all that comes with it.

p.s. on the issue of "people of color" and Halle Berry, seriously, did she invent that phrase? Because I never heard it any where before her Oscar speech. Then all of a sudden, it was ubiquitous. And I've never understood how it is preferable to "colored people".

pps...sorry for such a long post. It's sad to think that my first contributions to Gothamist were to mock John L, but now I seem to have become him.

But unfortunately the first ammendment supposedly protects our right to say things, even unpleasant things.

Oh, and to clarify, nothing proposed actually interferes with that right. There's a difference between government telling you you shouldn't do something and telling you cannot.

People have still have the right to smoke, for instance - anti-smoking ads with grotesque imagery don't violate that right and serve an obvious public interest (improved public health.) It's the same deal here.

"There's a difference between government telling you you shouldn't do something and telling you cannot."

I agree with that...but at the same time, I don't think the government has any reason to be telling us what we "should or shouldn't" do. I don't think we should have government-funded campaigns to discourage people from swearing, or wearing jeans hanging below the waist, or smoking, or wearing white after labor day.

Either something is against the law, in which case it's OK to tell the public it CANNOT do something; or it's not against the law, in which case it should be none of the government's business.

i think this is great.