Not sure Iâm buying the authenticity of these.
Itâs not a TV show, and it is stagedâtheyâre public service announcements / advertisements produced by Everlast Peru. Hereâs an article from El Pais.
Still, pretty damn clever.
Staged, and kinda questionable that theyâre using a boxing manufacturerâs brand to answer sexual harassment with (mild) battery. But still very clever! Iâd love to see a US version of this, even if itâs a homemade blogger version. Some better closeups on the guysâ faces when they see itâs their mother would be nice.
I donât think so. Womenâs boxing and other martial arts can be pretty effective important in the self-empowerment of many women.
While I donât know anything about Everlastâs brand per se (and, of course, in many ways this is an ad for them), I donât think thereâs anything wrong with calling up images of strong women who like to box.
Google translate of that page is⌠A touch innacurate 
âIâm cholera in Peru not put a stop to sexual harassment in the public mediaâ
Calling up images is fine. The bit has a blatant theme of answering sexual harassment with physical violence (opening scene in which a boxing glove-themed vehicle is almost driven into a catcaller, host saying âShe should slap the bastardâ and âTake your wig off and beat the jerk upâ, etc.). It damages their moral high ground, and encourages women to answer these crimes with a more serious physically violent crime.
For me, the real clincher here was the extraordinary embarrassment that any man must feel when he realizes he just hit on his mom, and the notion that you shouldnât catcall because someone, somewhere, might be doing the very same thing to your own mother. They couldâve played that up a bit more, rather than the physical violence aspect.
I think that, without proper treatment, cholera might put a stop to sexual harassment.
All harassers and abusers should have prescribed sentences of cholera or dysentry without treatment for X number of days !
I can see concern based on the fact that melee combat with people of unknown capability(and potential allies) is a rather risky activity; or the potential for some moronic assertion that failure to respond with violence amounts to assent to grow up; but (if it could be achieved without these issues) would it actually be a bad thing if engaging in harassment carried the risk of a little blunt force injury?
Tactically, it wouldnât be a plan I would endorse (because of the risks noted above); but in a situation where somebody is harassing in order to flaunt, and revel in, their impunity, is the âmoral high groundâ really so delicate that it would not bear a demonstration that their impunity is not so great as they believe? Permanent damage might be a bit excessive; but thereâs a whole, rich, spectrum of largely temporary soft tissue injury to work with.
Mod note: Donât tell victims of sexual harassment how they are supposed to react to it. Cheers!
I like the concept of an overkill lesson in shaming shameful behaviour but I think the tried and tested repeating-everything-they-say-back-at-them-like-a-child-does would probably work better. I dunno, Iâm not a psychologist but I reckon that gets on most peopleâs tits.
I saw a bit of one of those shows where they honey-trap the partners of suspicious girlfriends to see on camera if they play away but ultimately ended up destroying a fine relationship because of the elborate display of mistrust. I suppose it made good telly though (in the sense that people like watching cruel bs).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
