Potomaker, I agree in principle with your point concerning class dynamics. Since I grew up in northern Brazil and had to go through a "favela" (shantytown) every day on my way to school, I have probably experienced a few things as a child that the writer, Hepola, never had to put up with on her way to work. Indeed feminists often talk as if there was no other source of oppression in society; as if real-life situations were not an interaction of various factors (sex, race, social class, age) often pulling in different directions.

But I also think it pays to consider one of these dimensions at a time -- not to artificially exclude the others, but because it has its own dynamics. It is necessary to examine the nature of sexual taunts as such, since their interpretation often involves standard assumptions or stereotypes ('the man is always in control'), independently of the social class status of the participants, that are in need of some critical attention. My ultimate point is simply that men, regardless of their social class, are more complicated beings that some women or some feminists seem to give them credit for.

I agree that there is a 'presumption of victimhood' for women even in relatively banal situations like catcalling, but I must say I don't think the construction workers are as fully silenced as you suggest. I think that the assumption that their frustrations are exaggerated if they have to do with topics like being taunted by women is worse than their lack of access to the means of expressing them. And the latter is changing anyway with sites offering free or almost-free space: I've seen a few personal weblogs from men with posts expressing their frustration with various aspects of their workday that might, as far as I could tell, have been written by construction workers. Some Facebook and MySpace pages also come to mind.

Also, don't forget to add the social class element to the woman's situation too: it's usually the richer, white-collar working woman who can 'vent their frustrations and impotence' in weblogs, while poorer waitresses or receptionists may have as little access to these outlets as the construction workers who catcalled them.

Finally, I agree completely with your formulation: what really can a man safely do when he is taunted sexually but to pretend that it doesn't bother him? But at the same time... let's not forget the possibility that the original situation -- the girls catcalling the construction workers -- may actually have been an innocent game between both of them. Maybe both sides actually enjoyed it, and the only ones to feel bad were the school directors. Automatically assuming that this was not the case is, in a sense, as bad as Hepola's assumption that a man always enjoys being taunted by women. I like to believe that, even in today's world, men and women can still share a friendly joke; though we can't know for sure, wouldn't it be nice if this was the case in this story?

Anybody who thinks having an abortion is just like wiping out dirt from a skirt really needs some help. It isn't; it's a lot more than that, an experience not to be taken lightly. But to me the bottom line is simple: not everybody agrees that abortion is a crime. In fact, lots and lots of otherwise quite normal and rational people think that abortion is up to the woman, not to law. So if those normal and rational people who are against abortion try to force those normal and rational people who aren't to conform to their beliefs by outlawing abortion, I think something wrong is going on. I fear the hidden assumptions (on both sides) that are keeping the abortion debate at a purely emotional level.

Question: would the girls dress this way if they didn't think it would have an effect in boys?

I have nothing in principle against women dressing in titillating ways -- even very young girls. For those boys who know what it's all about (and it does take some time -- as I recall, there was a certain amount of time between my googoo-dada days and the time in my teens when I entered the 'constantly aroused' state), it's certainly nice to think the girls are into it as well.

But are they? Despite the FaceBook and MySpace pages, my experience with young girls (no, not that kind of experience) tells me they usually aren't. It's just like 5-year-olds imitating mommy and daddy at work: it's funny, it shows they have a lot of observation power, but they don't really know what it is about very deeply. Since the provocatively dressed girls are, to some extent, playing with fire when they dress more provocatively than usual, I think they should only be allowed to do it if they can convince an adult (e.g. me) that they know what it means for the boys, including the safety issues. Just like I would rather they only start driving a car after they understand the kinds of accidents they can cause.

It's hard to, well, get hard without any hope. Maybe girls like to inflict this on boys, just like boys like to pull girls' hair -- in both cases non-consensually. OK, these are not serious misdemeanors. But let both sides at least be aware of the consequences: don't pull hair, or wear hot pants, and then claim you didn't know what it means.