Scholarly research is significantly improved through peer review. Although for profit organizations, like book publishers, usually pay reviewers a nominal honorarium in the form of money or books, if the research is submitted to an academic journal, peer review is typically done by external reviewers for free.
Experts who are asked to perform these types of review usually make an informal cost-benefit calculation about agreeing to review and the level of their effort. If the expected reward (i.e., commitment to service or a field, etc.) is higher than their projected expenditure of level of effort (including competing obligations) they may agree to review a paper.
However, if the process of peer reviewing is unnecessarily bothersome and burdensome, not only will reviewers be disinclined to assist journal editors, but they may also be reluctant to submit papers for review to those journals too.
I get it. Acting as a journal editor is a thankless, but necessary task. And it is difficult to secure reviews from qualified experts in a timely manner, especially ones that will assist both the researchers who submit papers and ones that will make your job easier.
That’s why it’s very important that journal editors continuously ask themselves, how can they make the donation of this valuable free labor as painless and attractive as possible, and insure that reviewers will do it again?
One way to insure that potential reviewers will accept invitations to review is by making the process and experience as user friendly as possible and recognizing reviewer’s efforts in a manner that is meaningful.
Here are my suggestions, some of which journals do and others that some may benefit from:
1. Provide explicit instructions (and/or questions that should be answered) by reviewers regarding the appropriateness of the papers under peer review. Periodically re-examine the instructions and/or questions to be answered by reviewers, not to mention their format, to determine if they enable the quality reviews you are seeking.
2. Don’t have your managing editor spend what appears to be a ridiculous amount of time, going back and forth with the author/s of a paper that has been recently been submitted, forcing them to insert one sentence due diligence information directly into the manuscript, only to give the author/s a bench reject.
3. Advise the managing editor to respond in a timely manner (e.g., not a month) to the author/s of new submissions that there papers need be reformatted to accommodate to the to nuances of the journal format.
4. Be careful about turning the day-to-day management of the journal over to others, unless you are going to properly supervise them. If you are a journal editor, and you are too busy with your own teaching, research, or administrative/service work, then consider sharing the task of running a journal, in an equitable manner with one or more competent colleagues.
5. I understand the importance of giving all paper writers a chance, but by the same token, don’t give reviewers papers that you honestly believe are not going to make it through the peer review process. If you feel that the paper will not pass the review process, then write a few thoughtful sentences or a paragraph why, and send this to the paper writer. Don’t simply pass the buck to your reviewers. Most academics hate to get bench rejects, but it is better to learn early in the review process that your paper is inappropriate and why, than hearing it two-six months later from grumpy reviewers.
6. Make sure that the criteria for evaluation of peer reviewed papers are clearly signposted and properly explained. Better still, have separate fields for the reviewers to fill out with a minimum number of characters.
7. Do not use your editorial board’s members as window dressing. Use them, as much as possible to review papers, assist you in finding appropriate reviewers for papers, and in making thoughtful policy decisions you are considering. If one or more of them continuously refuses to review, takes ridiculously long times to complete this task, and needs to be continuously reminded to return their reviews then with fair warning they should be dropped from the editorial board. Have a system to regularly (e.g., yearly) add or replace members on your board. Add new people to the board, from your most active and helpful reviewers to accomplish this task.
8. Avoid burning your reviewers out. Unless you are on the editorial board, sending reviewers more than two papers a year is inappropriate.
9. Send your reviewers periodic reminders when their reviews are due. If they don’t respond to you in a couple of days or at most a week send them a friendly reminder. Reviews that linger more than 2 months are unacceptable. Quick turnaround times are appreciated by authors and word gets around. You get more and better submissions that way.
10. Clearly indicate on the invitation to review when you want the review returned. Due dates should not come as a surprise in the next e-mail the reviewer receives.
11. Don’t ask for a review due in a week’s time after the reviewer has agreed to write it.
12. Mentor reviewers whom you believe could benefit from this kind of assistance so that they can improve this skill. Get a diverse set of reviewers and editorial board members (different countries/racial and ethnic backgrounds/genders, academic ranks, etc.). This usually increases diversity of ideas, gives opportunities to under-represented groups, etc.
13. When the reviews are completed and you have sent them to the author, take the extra step and send an extra blind copy to the reviewers (blind their names too). We like to see how our evaluation compares to our colleagues. Sometimes this gives us an informal benchmark on how to improve our reviewing.
14. In addition to partnering with an organization like Publons that tracks reviewers efforts, once a year publish the names of the reviewers of the articles as an appendix.
There are plenty things wrong with scholarly journals, but one of the easily solvable ones have to do with the peer review process. Over the past two decades, with the advent of e-mail and web-based reviewing platforms significant improvements have been introduced into the academic paper reviewing process, but the above listed suggestions may improve the process and experience, and assist editors of scholarly journals to recruit and maintain appropriate reviewers.
Photo Credit:
Photographer: William Murphy
Title: LOST VENN DIAGRAM [GEO-TAGGED]-1574548
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/48948684532_af941ce3de_c.jpg533799Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-07-02 20:21:062022-04-14 15:46:14How editors of academic journals can increase the willingness of scholars to review papers and get better reviews
Unless I’m mistaken, there are two situations in which people can legitimately claim to call themselves a criminologist.
In the first instance, many criminal justice agencies and other government organizations hire individuals for the job title “Criminologist.” In order to be considered for this designation, the person must possess, the necessary specified qualifications (usually a master’s degree, typically in criminology or criminal justice). These individuals assess crime statistics, or they are involved in the processing of crime scenes.
In the other situation, in general, as long as you have earned a PhD from an accredited university, and you publish your research in peer reviewed journals or books in the field of criminology or criminal justice, you also have a legitimate claim to calling yourself a criminologist.
So what?
Some individuals (often current or retired criminal justice practitioners or people with lived experience – formerly incarcerated citizens, justice impacted or involved, etc.) refer to themselves as criminologists.
Lived, or sometimes labelled firsthand experience can be very important, in helping to understand the subtleties of a situation, process, or profession, but in and of itself lived experience is not equivalent to certification.
Certification typically requires a person to complete a course of studies and training, pass a test, earn a degree, and/or be granted a licensure in a relevant subject area. In general, this process assists a person to gain expertise. Moreover, individuals with lived experience may have valuable insights, and we might want to listen to them or read what they want to say, and perhaps they have something of interest to add to the discussion and thus we can learn from them. But again, they do not have recognized appropriate subject specific certifications. More specifically, just because you have some knowledge about crime, criminals and criminal justice agencies, it may give you some expertise, but it does not grant you a certification, nor does it make you a bona fide criminologist.
Why is calling oneself a criminologist without the appropriate certifications problematic?
To begin with it’s disingenuous to call oneself something when one is not.
Additionally, if almost anyone can call themselves a criminologist without the appropriate certification, etc. it devalues the expertise of people who have gone through the long slog of earning the appropriate degrees, standards, etc.
Moreover, claims to the designation of criminologist without appropriate certification also has the potential to misrepresent what appropriately credentialed criminologists know and do.
I believe that the issue I am addressing is part of the confusion that many people (and organizations) have about the labels, terms, and the relationship among amateurs, authorities, experts, and professionals, and often the lack of knowledge they may also have concerning certification and accreditation. Clearly there is a linkage among these terms, thus this is also a point in time when consulting a dictionary and paying attention to nuance is important.
In general, amateurs do not have as much knowledge, experience and skills as an expert. Experts, on the other hand, typically have specialized knowledge and skills, and may even have some sort of relevant certification, as may the organization they work for, if indeed they work in this kind of setting, has been accredited by a relevant recognized body.
Experts may act in an unprofessional (even amateurish) manner, they may also have difficulty translating their knowledge to a wider audience, but as long as they have the appropriate certifications, then they are still experts.
Why does this occur?
Unlike the professions of architecture, law, medicine, etc. the field of criminology does not have a recognized way to certify individuals to become criminologists, a professional organization to determine and enforce licensing standards, nor sanction those who call themselves criminologist but don’t have the credentials. Thus any individual who wants to call themselves a criminologist can do so at will.
How can this problem be solved?
I have two weak and imperfect solutions to this conundrum. And maybe this is why this problem is so thorny and persists.
On the one hand, criminologists can spend time educating the public about what is needed to be labelled a criminologist. We can even work hard to convince our learned organizations, like ASC or ACJS to do the same. But in all reality I doubt that the general public really cares about this situation.
Alternatively, we might try and convince one or more of our learned organizations to establish a certification or licensing process. This initiative, however, may unnecessarily burdensome and end excluding people with criminal convictions, similar to what has happened with other large licensure bodies Why? One of the first things that a professional organizations often does is to exclude people with criminal records. At the very least ASC or ACJS can try this as an experiment, for a short period of time. And then evaluate it.
Conclusion
We can make it our mission to point out every time we see, meet or learn of someone who claims to be a criminologist is not what in fact they claim to be. Although this may provide some personal satisfaction at some level to some people, it also seems to be an exhausting process. Until then we will live with complicated issue.
photo credit nist6dhFollow
lecture
3d human give a lecture behind a podium
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/8736820287_037da35645_o.jpg346347Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-06-23 03:59:262021-07-01 19:07:32Who is the real criminologist? And other uncomfortable questions about expertise
If you’re a woman, particularly if you live or work in an urban setting, you are bound to be cat called. What’s cat calling? This is typically when men (and sometimes boys), alone or in groups whistle, make sexually suggestive comments or noises when women or girls pass by, or say, at different volume levels expressions commenting on how women look, or their suitability as a sexual partner.
This can include saying “hey beautiful,” “looking good,” or when men tell girls and women to “smile,” etc..
This behavior is pervasive and insidious. It is part of street culture in many cities. And most women don’t like it. It makes them feel uncomfortable, intimidated, threatened, assaulted and generally unsafe. It’s unwanted, and unnecessarily objectifies them. It makes most women leery about going out in public alone, or even accompanied by a male they know. They even report, taking different routes home, or preferring to drive and not walk.
Just because men don’t witness cat calling, does not mean that it doesn’t happen, nor with the intensity that women report it. Because when women are with men they are less likely to be cat called.
Why is cat calling bad?
Everyone (regardless of race, gender, religious preference, sexual persuasion, etc.) has the right to walk down our city streets, the halls of their apartment building, take the elevator to their office, and shop without being accosted.
Not only is cat calling an everyday urban incivility, bullying, and sexual harassment, but it frustrates women’s personal autonomy.
It also puts women in an impossible situation. They either a. respond and say stop and then get berated or attacked, b. ignore, and potentially still get berated and 3. Respond and say thanks and either be pulled into a conversation that turns negative or feel shitty about tolerating it.
Over time, cat calling has a negative psychological effect on women, who constantly have to deal with this low level of constant threat. It may even shape life trajectories, personality, self-confidence, and how young girls grow up.
Moreover, cat calling contributes to overall negative perception of women.
Why does it happen?
Since cat calling is primarily performative (few men actually think that the women they cat call will stop and go on a date with them), it’s better seen as a way that men demonstrate and assert their power over public space in what is unquestionably a sexist society. If done in the company of other men, cat calling is also a mechanism to show other men, that they are part of an in-group or subculture.
Cat calling is an extension of lots of male communication like that coming from boisterous men in what is labeled locker room talk, or slut shaming.
How can we change this state of affairs?
Most men never get cat called, nor sexually harassed. Few know what they do is called cat calling. Some men, when confronted about their cat calling, give lame excuses or offer hollow justifications. They say that their cat calling is intended to be flattering and, that some women really like it. These knuckleheads have a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
Plain and simple, all men must stop cat calling and call out others when they see it. (But consider the following, if you saw someone messing with your car you would certainly intervene, so why would you not do this with cat calling?).
Since cat calling is part of a continuum of sexual harassment of women, many of the solutions that have been advanced to deal with sexual harassment can also be applied to cat calling too.
If you are a male, especially if you have a wife, mother, sister, or daughter it’s important to call out boys and men who cat call. I’m not suggesting that males do this in a macho manner. I’m not implying that you should get into a fist fight. It may be truly dangerous to intervene. So what can we realistically do?
One of the best resources on this matter is the Stop Street Harassment (SSH) organization, a nonprofit entity is “dedicated to documenting and ending gender-based street harassment worldwide.” They have a number of practical suggestions not just for women but men also to combat cat calling. They break down these strategies into four categories, including: “assertively respond to the harassers calmly, firmly, and without insults or personal attacks, “Hand the Harasser a Flyer,” “let the harasser know that their actions are not condoned by others. Ask them if they want help and what they’d like you to do or simply check in to see if they’re okay, “if the harassers work for an identifiable company, call or write the company to let them know that their employees are harassing people on the job and why that is unacceptable,” “Report to Police or Transit Workers,” take a photo or video and upload on social media or an app like hollaback that is specially designed to report cat calling, and “Take Creative Action.”
The time to act is now to make women’s life safer and to assist in creating and enabling more equitable public spaces.
Photo Credit: Molly Des JardinFollow
no catcall zone
In Union Square, NYC.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/24921501700_2a0c815074_o-scaled.jpg25601920Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2021-06-15 19:31:222021-06-15 19:31:22Calling out cat calling: Men need to step up
How editors of academic journals can increase the willingness of scholars to review papers and get better reviews
/by Jeffrey Ian RossScholarly research is significantly improved through peer review. Although for profit organizations, like book publishers, usually pay reviewers a nominal honorarium in the form of money or books, if the research is submitted to an academic journal, peer review is typically done by external reviewers for free.
Experts who are asked to perform these types of review usually make an informal cost-benefit calculation about agreeing to review and the level of their effort. If the expected reward (i.e., commitment to service or a field, etc.) is higher than their projected expenditure of level of effort (including competing obligations) they may agree to review a paper.
However, if the process of peer reviewing is unnecessarily bothersome and burdensome, not only will reviewers be disinclined to assist journal editors, but they may also be reluctant to submit papers for review to those journals too.
I get it. Acting as a journal editor is a thankless, but necessary task. And it is difficult to secure reviews from qualified experts in a timely manner, especially ones that will assist both the researchers who submit papers and ones that will make your job easier.
That’s why it’s very important that journal editors continuously ask themselves, how can they make the donation of this valuable free labor as painless and attractive as possible, and insure that reviewers will do it again?
One way to insure that potential reviewers will accept invitations to review is by making the process and experience as user friendly as possible and recognizing reviewer’s efforts in a manner that is meaningful.
Here are my suggestions, some of which journals do and others that some may benefit from:
1. Provide explicit instructions (and/or questions that should be answered) by reviewers regarding the appropriateness of the papers under peer review. Periodically re-examine the instructions and/or questions to be answered by reviewers, not to mention their format, to determine if they enable the quality reviews you are seeking.
2. Don’t have your managing editor spend what appears to be a ridiculous amount of time, going back and forth with the author/s of a paper that has been recently been submitted, forcing them to insert one sentence due diligence information directly into the manuscript, only to give the author/s a bench reject.
3. Advise the managing editor to respond in a timely manner (e.g., not a month) to the author/s of new submissions that there papers need be reformatted to accommodate to the to nuances of the journal format.
4. Be careful about turning the day-to-day management of the journal over to others, unless you are going to properly supervise them. If you are a journal editor, and you are too busy with your own teaching, research, or administrative/service work, then consider sharing the task of running a journal, in an equitable manner with one or more competent colleagues.
5. I understand the importance of giving all paper writers a chance, but by the same token, don’t give reviewers papers that you honestly believe are not going to make it through the peer review process. If you feel that the paper will not pass the review process, then write a few thoughtful sentences or a paragraph why, and send this to the paper writer. Don’t simply pass the buck to your reviewers. Most academics hate to get bench rejects, but it is better to learn early in the review process that your paper is inappropriate and why, than hearing it two-six months later from grumpy reviewers.
6. Make sure that the criteria for evaluation of peer reviewed papers are clearly signposted and properly explained. Better still, have separate fields for the reviewers to fill out with a minimum number of characters.
7. Do not use your editorial board’s members as window dressing. Use them, as much as possible to review papers, assist you in finding appropriate reviewers for papers, and in making thoughtful policy decisions you are considering. If one or more of them continuously refuses to review, takes ridiculously long times to complete this task, and needs to be continuously reminded to return their reviews then with fair warning they should be dropped from the editorial board. Have a system to regularly (e.g., yearly) add or replace members on your board. Add new people to the board, from your most active and helpful reviewers to accomplish this task.
8. Avoid burning your reviewers out. Unless you are on the editorial board, sending reviewers more than two papers a year is inappropriate.
9. Send your reviewers periodic reminders when their reviews are due. If they don’t respond to you in a couple of days or at most a week send them a friendly reminder. Reviews that linger more than 2 months are unacceptable. Quick turnaround times are appreciated by authors and word gets around. You get more and better submissions that way.
10. Clearly indicate on the invitation to review when you want the review returned. Due dates should not come as a surprise in the next e-mail the reviewer receives.
11. Don’t ask for a review due in a week’s time after the reviewer has agreed to write it.
12. Mentor reviewers whom you believe could benefit from this kind of assistance so that they can improve this skill. Get a diverse set of reviewers and editorial board members (different countries/racial and ethnic backgrounds/genders, academic ranks, etc.). This usually increases diversity of ideas, gives opportunities to under-represented groups, etc.
13. When the reviews are completed and you have sent them to the author, take the extra step and send an extra blind copy to the reviewers (blind their names too). We like to see how our evaluation compares to our colleagues. Sometimes this gives us an informal benchmark on how to improve our reviewing.
14. In addition to partnering with an organization like Publons that tracks reviewers efforts, once a year publish the names of the reviewers of the articles as an appendix.
There are plenty things wrong with scholarly journals, but one of the easily solvable ones have to do with the peer review process. Over the past two decades, with the advent of e-mail and web-based reviewing platforms significant improvements have been introduced into the academic paper reviewing process, but the above listed suggestions may improve the process and experience, and assist editors of scholarly journals to recruit and maintain appropriate reviewers.
Photo Credit:
Photographer: William Murphy
Title: LOST VENN DIAGRAM [GEO-TAGGED]-1574548
Who is the real criminologist? And other uncomfortable questions about expertise
/by Jeffrey Ian RossUnless I’m mistaken, there are two situations in which people can legitimately claim to call themselves a criminologist.
In the first instance, many criminal justice agencies and other government organizations hire individuals for the job title “Criminologist.” In order to be considered for this designation, the person must possess, the necessary specified qualifications (usually a master’s degree, typically in criminology or criminal justice). These individuals assess crime statistics, or they are involved in the processing of crime scenes.
In the other situation, in general, as long as you have earned a PhD from an accredited university, and you publish your research in peer reviewed journals or books in the field of criminology or criminal justice, you also have a legitimate claim to calling yourself a criminologist.
So what?
Some individuals (often current or retired criminal justice practitioners or people with lived experience – formerly incarcerated citizens, justice impacted or involved, etc.) refer to themselves as criminologists.
Lived, or sometimes labelled firsthand experience can be very important, in helping to understand the subtleties of a situation, process, or profession, but in and of itself lived experience is not equivalent to certification.
Certification typically requires a person to complete a course of studies and training, pass a test, earn a degree, and/or be granted a licensure in a relevant subject area. In general, this process assists a person to gain expertise. Moreover, individuals with lived experience may have valuable insights, and we might want to listen to them or read what they want to say, and perhaps they have something of interest to add to the discussion and thus we can learn from them. But again, they do not have recognized appropriate subject specific certifications. More specifically, just because you have some knowledge about crime, criminals and criminal justice agencies, it may give you some expertise, but it does not grant you a certification, nor does it make you a bona fide criminologist.
Why is calling oneself a criminologist without the appropriate certifications problematic?
To begin with it’s disingenuous to call oneself something when one is not.
Additionally, if almost anyone can call themselves a criminologist without the appropriate certification, etc. it devalues the expertise of people who have gone through the long slog of earning the appropriate degrees, standards, etc.
Moreover, claims to the designation of criminologist without appropriate certification also has the potential to misrepresent what appropriately credentialed criminologists know and do.
I believe that the issue I am addressing is part of the confusion that many people (and organizations) have about the labels, terms, and the relationship among amateurs, authorities, experts, and professionals, and often the lack of knowledge they may also have concerning certification and accreditation. Clearly there is a linkage among these terms, thus this is also a point in time when consulting a dictionary and paying attention to nuance is important.
In general, amateurs do not have as much knowledge, experience and skills as an expert. Experts, on the other hand, typically have specialized knowledge and skills, and may even have some sort of relevant certification, as may the organization they work for, if indeed they work in this kind of setting, has been accredited by a relevant recognized body.
Experts may act in an unprofessional (even amateurish) manner, they may also have difficulty translating their knowledge to a wider audience, but as long as they have the appropriate certifications, then they are still experts.
Why does this occur?
Unlike the professions of architecture, law, medicine, etc. the field of criminology does not have a recognized way to certify individuals to become criminologists, a professional organization to determine and enforce licensing standards, nor sanction those who call themselves criminologist but don’t have the credentials. Thus any individual who wants to call themselves a criminologist can do so at will.
How can this problem be solved?
I have two weak and imperfect solutions to this conundrum. And maybe this is why this problem is so thorny and persists.
On the one hand, criminologists can spend time educating the public about what is needed to be labelled a criminologist. We can even work hard to convince our learned organizations, like ASC or ACJS to do the same. But in all reality I doubt that the general public really cares about this situation.
Alternatively, we might try and convince one or more of our learned organizations to establish a certification or licensing process. This initiative, however, may unnecessarily burdensome and end excluding people with criminal convictions, similar to what has happened with other large licensure bodies Why? One of the first things that a professional organizations often does is to exclude people with criminal records. At the very least ASC or ACJS can try this as an experiment, for a short period of time. And then evaluate it.
Conclusion
We can make it our mission to point out every time we see, meet or learn of someone who claims to be a criminologist is not what in fact they claim to be. Although this may provide some personal satisfaction at some level to some people, it also seems to be an exhausting process. Until then we will live with complicated issue.
photo credit nist6dhFollow
lecture
3d human give a lecture behind a podium
Calling out cat calling: Men need to step up
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIf you’re a woman, particularly if you live or work in an urban setting, you are bound to be cat called. What’s cat calling? This is typically when men (and sometimes boys), alone or in groups whistle, make sexually suggestive comments or noises when women or girls pass by, or say, at different volume levels expressions commenting on how women look, or their suitability as a sexual partner.
This can include saying “hey beautiful,” “looking good,” or when men tell girls and women to “smile,” etc..
This behavior is pervasive and insidious. It is part of street culture in many cities. And most women don’t like it. It makes them feel uncomfortable, intimidated, threatened, assaulted and generally unsafe. It’s unwanted, and unnecessarily objectifies them. It makes most women leery about going out in public alone, or even accompanied by a male they know. They even report, taking different routes home, or preferring to drive and not walk.
Just because men don’t witness cat calling, does not mean that it doesn’t happen, nor with the intensity that women report it. Because when women are with men they are less likely to be cat called.
Why is cat calling bad?
Everyone (regardless of race, gender, religious preference, sexual persuasion, etc.) has the right to walk down our city streets, the halls of their apartment building, take the elevator to their office, and shop without being accosted.
Not only is cat calling an everyday urban incivility, bullying, and sexual harassment, but it frustrates women’s personal autonomy.
It also puts women in an impossible situation. They either a. respond and say stop and then get berated or attacked, b. ignore, and potentially still get berated and 3. Respond and say thanks and either be pulled into a conversation that turns negative or feel shitty about tolerating it.
Over time, cat calling has a negative psychological effect on women, who constantly have to deal with this low level of constant threat. It may even shape life trajectories, personality, self-confidence, and how young girls grow up.
Moreover, cat calling contributes to overall negative perception of women.
Why does it happen?
Since cat calling is primarily performative (few men actually think that the women they cat call will stop and go on a date with them), it’s better seen as a way that men demonstrate and assert their power over public space in what is unquestionably a sexist society. If done in the company of other men, cat calling is also a mechanism to show other men, that they are part of an in-group or subculture.
Cat calling is an extension of lots of male communication like that coming from boisterous men in what is labeled locker room talk, or slut shaming.
How can we change this state of affairs?
Most men never get cat called, nor sexually harassed. Few know what they do is called cat calling. Some men, when confronted about their cat calling, give lame excuses or offer hollow justifications. They say that their cat calling is intended to be flattering and, that some women really like it. These knuckleheads have a hard time putting themselves in others shoes.
Plain and simple, all men must stop cat calling and call out others when they see it. (But consider the following, if you saw someone messing with your car you would certainly intervene, so why would you not do this with cat calling?).
Since cat calling is part of a continuum of sexual harassment of women, many of the solutions that have been advanced to deal with sexual harassment can also be applied to cat calling too.
If you are a male, especially if you have a wife, mother, sister, or daughter it’s important to call out boys and men who cat call. I’m not suggesting that males do this in a macho manner. I’m not implying that you should get into a fist fight. It may be truly dangerous to intervene. So what can we realistically do?
One of the best resources on this matter is the Stop Street Harassment (SSH) organization, a nonprofit entity is “dedicated to documenting and ending gender-based street harassment worldwide.” They have a number of practical suggestions not just for women but men also to combat cat calling. They break down these strategies into four categories, including: “assertively respond to the harassers calmly, firmly, and without insults or personal attacks, “Hand the Harasser a Flyer,” “let the harasser know that their actions are not condoned by others. Ask them if they want help and what they’d like you to do or simply check in to see if they’re okay, “if the harassers work for an identifiable company, call or write the company to let them know that their employees are harassing people on the job and why that is unacceptable,” “Report to Police or Transit Workers,” take a photo or video and upload on social media or an app like hollaback that is specially designed to report cat calling, and “Take Creative Action.”
The time to act is now to make women’s life safer and to assist in creating and enabling more equitable public spaces.
Photo Credit: Molly Des JardinFollow
no catcall zone
In Union Square, NYC.