Interesting discussion. Most posts actually have interesting viewpoints and ideas!

@Knecht: indeed you didn't condone revenge with your words. Now, please forgive me if I was wrong, but my thought was that, if one thinks the situations of men and women are still very different in our society, then not only catcalling, but any action would not be 'equivalent' if done by a man vs. by a woman. If a woman buys a book, sells a house, eats popcorn, yawns in public, votes for a Republican, looks at herself in a mirror, etc..., this will not be 'equivalent' to a man doing any of these things because men's and women's situations in society are presumably different, and so are the stereotypes that go along with them. So why say specifically that the catcalling of men by women is 'not equivalent' to the catcalling of women by men, when any action done by a woman is 'not equivalent' to the same action done by a man? Well, it seemed to me that you mentioned this because you wanted to give implicit support to the girls' action, despite your explicit criticism. In other words, it seemed to me that you were implicitly defending a double standard ('women suffer from catcalling, let them dish it out once!'), despite saying that the girls should not have done what they did. Now, I apologise if I've misread you; that was not my intention.

@Juliebird, interesting question: are men happier when women give them such attentions than women are when men do? I think not. Why? Because, for both sexes, several factors play a role. Is the target of these attentions feeling good about him/herself, receptive for interactions with the external world, or is s/he worreid about something else, a personal problem, or angry at some injustice, or simply sad and blue? (Even a friendly gesture like saying 'good morning' to a stranger will elicit all kinds of reactions depending on mood, let alone one usually assumed to be unfriendly like catcalling.) A crucial factor: who is the person doing the catcalling? Is it someone from whom the target would like to receive attention? The women in the Coke commercial who 'objectified' a man were also attractive and sexy. It is indeed flattering to see sexual interest (not 'objectification', a word fraught with misunderstandings in my opinion) in the eyes of an attractive, sexy woman. On the other hand, most men would probably agree that if they were the target of such attentions from a woman who they didn't like or found unattractive, they would feel awkward and probably irritated (a typical male reaction when they feel 'demeaned', under attack). Judging by what I've heard from various women (am I right, girls?), the same would also be mostly true for them: if the guy giving them these attentions (stare, 'Hey beautiful!', etc.) is attractive, close to 'their type', they might well enjoy the attention and indulge in a little flirting. If he isn't (the most frequent case with construction workers, who usually are not Calvin Klein models and are often dirty because of their work), then the attentions will have quite the opposite effect. To me, this is more general human psychology than a difference between boys and girls.

You also mention the issue of control, which I find very important. You suggest that men catcalling a woman are 'in control' (and the woman feels manipulated), while women catcalling a men are 'flattering him' and thus not in control (he enjoys it and is 'in control'). Since the situation in the Coke commercial is different from a normal catcalling-by-construction-workers (the women were changing their schedules in order to be able to stare at him, etc.), let's consider it instead. If the Coke add had a girl being stared at by men (who changed their schedules to be able to see her), would you say that the girl was 'in control' and the men weren't? Or is it the case that, in most cases when a man is showing sexual interest in a woman, he is immediately assumed to be 'in control'? In other words, could it be that your reading of the Coke add situation as showing the man still in control (since the women were rearranging their schedule to see him) actually shows a certain sexual bias -- the man is always in control, even when he is 'objectified', whereas the woman never is?

I fully understand the question of 'physical threat': men are usually stronger than women, so it is usually more reasonable from women to fear physical danger when men express sexual interest than the other way around. And this certainly contributes to the feeling of 'control' or lack thereof. But I still maintain that 'control' is a multi-dimensional thing, and physical strength is only one of the variables involved.

I agree with AtulVarma: when it occurs that men feel 'bad' because of unwanted attention from women, they usually cannot complain, because other people -- both women and men -- would probably laugh at them, thinking that they, as men, obviously must have enjoyed it. A good example of a situation in which sexual stereotypes can actually be used to oppress men as men -- it's rarer than the oppression of women, but, believe me, it does happen. I've also had this experience, and more than once.

I think that a situation in which people show obvious signs of sexual interest in someone else is always ambiguous. The 'starer(s)' may be 'in control', treating the target as a 'sexual object' for 'consumption' via 'masturbatory fantasies', etc.; or the target may be a 'sex symbol', a 'god/dess' exuding attraction, 'controlling' the mesmerized 'starer(s)' and feeling powerful, etc. These two archetypal situations can occur as such, but, at least in my experience, real-life situations usually mix them, with the participants often diverging as to what was really happening, or even changing their opinions during the situation.