Concerns and Disagreements to Feminism and Libcom + Questions for Ancoms

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 16:45
Concerns and Disagreements to Feminism and Libcom + Questions for Ancoms

As the title says, I have quite a few concerns and disagreements on feminism as it has been presented by a few other Ancoms and concerns and disagreements on the structure of this website. I am not here to troll, I am looking for legit responses, so if any of this seems stupid or trolly to you, well, tough, that's how I present things and that will most likely not change.

My Concerns and Disagreements on Feminism
1) I understand various reasons to why feminists advocate what they advocate. I, like them see that men are advantaged in many societies around the globe as in comparison to Women, however, what I have found out is that this isn't always the case. Many feminists seem to make it look as if it is always the case as I see it. In a video that tl;dr made in response to badmouseproductions on Feminism (I must point out that most of what tl;dr said I saw as bollocks), there was one thing that caught my eye and made me think in contrast to what Feminists have said many times over. I was quite hoping that badmouse would, in his following response address this point that tl;dr made against Feminism, but to my surprise, this point was not addressed at all. The point that tl;dr made was that women are not always treated as inferiors in every circumstance of gender inequality and provided a video showcasing two actors; one male another female. The test was done in different public places, and in each place was done twice. First of the two tests involved the male actor posing as an abusive boyfriend towards his girlfriend (the female actor). This first part of the test in each location showed that public reacted defensively towards the female actor, even to extreme levels. The second part of the test in each location showed the contrast; the female actor was posing as the abuser and the male character as the abused, and from this test, the public didn't do anything to protect the male actor; at some point, one even joined the abusive female actor in abusing the male actor. What this showed is that Women are not mistreated by a society at all times in every way in highly developed countries. And even though this evidence, I do not see that Feminists are taking in account these types of situations. I do agree that women are treated as inferiors in many aspects of many societies MOST of the time, however saying this to be all of the time, from the evidence presented seems like a total lie to me.

2) I know for a fact that many Feminists, if not all seem to agree that Catcalling is Harassment, even Ancoms who are Feminists and say that it it's something that should be punishable (from what I understand). However, if you're an Ancom and advocate this whilst simultaneously saying that insulting other people is not something to be punishing people for, then from what I understand, you're making a contradiction. Catcalling is simply words; it is not like stalking or touching a random stranger in private spots against their will. If you are pro-insults, then it you are quite frankly in a contradicting state if you also advocate anti-catcalling. I am not pro-catcalling, but I am not against it either because I see it as a contradiction to insults. If you see that insults do not need consent from the person you're insulting (if you do think that insulting others need you to have consent from them, then you're absolutely ridiculous, because who would in their right mind would allow someone to be insulted by and then complain about them doing so?) then why would you need consent from someone to catcall them. And believe me, I've been catcalled myself (I'm male btw) and I did feel uneasy, or to say had my feelings hurt, but does that mean that I have the right to get them punished for saying this? No, it's completely ridiculous. If we want free speech, or true free speech to be a thing in an ancom society, or even make societies today freer, then we should not advocate against cat-calling. If you can make an argument in response to this, be sure to do so, I am really curious as to how or whether this anti-catcalling thing can be justified in a different way by Ancoms who advocate Feminism than what is already being said many times over.

3) If I justified myself in my second concern/disagreement (that's an IF btw), then the following is linked to that: Wearing generally attractive clothing and then complaining that you have been catcalled many times over or looked at by other people in a "strange" way. Seriously, wtf? Doesn't it make sense that if you wear attractive clothing, the response to that by probably like half the people on the streets you walk past by will look at you in a "strange" way or will even catcall you? I see it that for many people it is in their nature to react to these circumstances in that way, and no matter what ideology you have, it will most likely happen almost every if not every time you walk on the streets in attractive clothing. Now, I do not blame women for this, I blame Capitalism as Capitalism, for the sake of profit makes many women these days want to look pretty whether to attract other men or not. It is not the fault of the people who look at you or catcall you that makes them react to women dressing up in attractive clothing in the way many of them do, but the fault of Capitalism. This is simply another reason to abolish Capitalism and not a reason to fucking complain and try and sew people that look at you in "strange" ways and/or catcall you because you're wearing attractive clothing.

My Concerns and Disagreements on Libcom
1) Libcom, from my initial observations is a Left win Anarchist web site, however, for some reason it is not structured in a way that matches with what Anarchists actually advocate. For one, it is hierarchically structured, having admins (may be moderators are here too, idk) banning and locking threads (even the ones which actually are relevant and whatnot useful. So far I've seen one good thread, which criticized admins of this website and was simply locked and put into archives.). Does that not make the founders of this website hypocrites? If this is not just a Left Anarchist website, but also a website where people advocate Authoritarian Leftist regimes and/or practices, then please tell me. If suggestions to changing this website's structure are something that is taking into account, then I would suggest that this website is decentralised and so that there wouldn't be people who have advantages for holding particular statuses. I do know that there are people who can make stupid topics and write stupid things about stuff that doesn't even matter and/or that is not relevant to what this website is about and my suggestion as a solution to this is you simply blocking people (accounts) or IPs of people from you viewing their rubbish content. It isn't perfect, but it certainly is better than setting up a hierarchy on a website that advocates the dismantling of hierarchy irl.

2) Euphemisms! Not too big of a deal, but still somewhat important as euphemisms simply make things seem different from what they actually are. Where is there a euphemism on this website that is actually significant? The so called "guidelines". If those were in any way guidelines that have been listed under the said page, then there would be no banning penalties for carrying out actions in contrast to what these supposed "guidelines" say. They're rules; a list of rules, most if not all of whichl I find absolutely ridiculous. Now, I am not against the idea of rules altogether (I do agree that there are legitemate rules and there is a reason to have certain rules), but simply naming this website's rules to guidelines isn't gonna make you seem like a better person. Say things as they are for what they are, don't be bullshitting, there's enough bullshit as it is.

3) ... I'd be discussing here my disagreements on the rules that this wesite, however I see that it would be a waste of time if this website turns out not to be what I initially thought it was, so I'll hold off on that.

Questions for Ancoms
1) What do you think of the UN (United Nations)?
2) What is your opinion on Necroposting in forums (any forum)?
3) If you're an advocate of a society where things are produced to meet the needs of people (so people could take things that are produced for free), what do you think would be a better way of distributing the products produced? By having some sort of storage/"library" where cooperatives would store their products and people could take things and if possible return them there OR by having people go to the particular cooperatives that produce certain products in order for the consumers to get the said products OR something different entirely?

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Oct 17 2015 21:00
Quote:
If you are pro-insults, then it you are quite frankly in a contradicting state if you also advocate anti-catcalling.

So calling someone an idiot in the street is the same as calling someone something sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic? Do you seriously think these things should be looked at in isolation from the context in which they're happening?

Besides, it's a massive assumption that there's any kind of consensus among feminists that cat-callers should be "punished" - what do you mean by that anyway? Like make it a criminal offence?

How do you think cat-callers should be dealt with?

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Oct 17 2015 23:22

Oh christ, just read number 3.... yuk.

How 'attractive' other people's clothing is is none of your business you slimy creep.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Oct 17 2015 21:32

Can this place go more than a couple weeks without some anti-feminist idiocy popping up?

As far as criticism 1) of libcom goes, hopefully no one actually thinks a website is a model of a future society or that treating it as one would serve any beneficial purpose.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Oct 17 2015 21:32

Xirmix - you may find readers here are not used to quite as many daft questions fired at them in one post.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Oct 17 2015 21:40
plasmatelly wrote:
Xirmix - you may find readers here are not used to quite as many daft questions fired at them in one post.

Well...

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 22:27

No, guys, I legit want answers! Please, don't look at me as some Ancap scumbag! I was at a stage similar to this when I couldn't decide whether to be an Ancap or an Ancom, but later on found out that Capitalism is not a legitemate structue. I'm serious, please, I'm looking for answers!

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Oct 17 2015 22:41
XirmiX wrote:
No, guys, I legit want answers! Please, don't look at me as some Ancap scumbag! I was at a stage similar to this when I couldn't decide whether to be an Ancap or an Ancom, but later on found out that Capitalism is not a legitemate structue. I'm serious, please, I'm looking for answers!

Not buying it. Methinks we've seen you before in various guises. A strange way to get your jollies old son but you'll soon be ignored and then it's off to the metaphorical dressing up box before you make another visit.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 22:47
commieprincess wrote:
Quote:
If you are pro-insults, then it you are quite frankly in a contradicting state if you also advocate anti-catcalling.

So calling someone an idiot in the street is the same as calling someone something sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic? Do you seriously think these things should be looked at in isolation from the context in which they're happening?

Besides, it's a massive assumption that there's any kind of consensus among feminists that cat-callers should be "punished" - what do you mean by that anyway? Like make it a criminal offence?

How do you think cat-callers should be dealt with?

I do not understand how calling someone an idiot is different from calling someone homophobic etc. Whether you're insulting someone out of the blue or call them that because they are carrying out actions which make them be what typically can be considered simply an insult, it is your freedom of speech to say whatever you want. Catcalling is used as a compliment, but can be perceived as an insult... Wait, so it IS the same as an insult and so there IS a contradiction. And if you take someone calling the head of Ukip a homophobe and a racist, then it is pretty much like calling them an idiot (though the context might be different, the intention and the response you're willing to get and do get in both types of instances is the same). And what do you mean by "they should be looked at in isolation from the context which they're looked at"?

So how do feminists actually want people who are catcalling them to be dealt with exactly? And I, wouldn't actually deal with them in any way; because the structure in which we live in is what makes these sets of events happen, hence if we dismantle states and capitalism, catcalling would go away mostly on its own, because capitalism, which caused this would no longer exist hence no more catcalling (mostly. Can't say completely gone, but then again, we can't say that about other "offences" and crimes as well).

Also, I see that stalking and touching people involuntarily for sexual purposes is harrassment (and if you take it further then it's rape), but catcalling? Seriously? Silence somebody for giving out noises which physically do not harm your body at all? At what point do you draw the line then? When is insulting (because basically catcalling, cyberbullying etc are type of insults from my understanding) someone not okay in an Anarcho-Feminist's view?

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 17 2015 22:51
Quote:
So how do feminists actually want people who are catcalling them to be dealt with exactly?

Flogging seems like a good option right now.

Talk about male entitlement. If you dress in a certain way, you can't expect sleazy men not to harass you. Anyway, what about our free speech! But don't worry, once we've got rid of capitalism it'll all be alright but until then suck it up sister.

What the fuck is it with men who think they can criticize they way women feel about being harassed? Stay in your lane.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 23:05

Believe what you want, Webby, but I swear I am new to this website. Before you know it I'll be seen as an Ancap, even though I rebuke Capitalism as much as the next Ancom.

And I... I thought you Ancoms would actually respond properly. I am not here to intimidate you, why can you not simply make a decent response?

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 23:35

Hmm, Fleur, now you made me think. Thanks.

Then again, basic insults would too be a lot scarcer if capitalism was abolished, yet I don't see any Anarcho-Faminists trying to defend the feelings of those people, but rather say "suck it up and be more thick-skinned" to softies. So how is it not a contradiction, I really do not get it. Insulting people can be seen by others as bullying, yet this web site in its "guidelines" is against it, and from what I suspect, cyberbullying is something that many members of this website will be against, yet the question is; where do you draw a lkne to that? When is an insult sent virtually not cyberbullying? It always is, it just depends on how soft or thick you are and if you're soft, of course you'll cry and think suicidal thoughts etc but is it right to punish physically those who cyberbullied the person who is soft-skinned? No! I used to be so soft-skinned I felt uneasy when someone said a swear word out loud but not directly at me. But you know what; I sucket it up and got thick-skinned. If insulting others can make others stronger, then so can catcalling make others stronger, because although you perceive catcalling, basic insults, cyberbullying etc as different things, all in all they're one thing and one thing only; insults (catcalling is actually a compliment but is taken as an knsult by those who are soft about it). Insults which will not wreck your life if you simply suck it up and people who see it as a compliment in fact are one example of this.

But wait, what?! Flogging?! Are you insane?!

And don't get me wrong; I do agree with a lot of what Feminists advocate. I do see that women are treated as inferiors MOST of the time, I do see that the systems that we live in shape many of them in a bad way, I do agree that women should be treated as equals and seen as equals and not as some capitalist dolls, but what I do not agree with and what I am not okay with is having someone brutally punished for catcalling someone. It's just fucking insanity!

And are you really gonna rebuke me just because I disagreed with you guys on certain aspects of Feminism, even though for the most part of it I agree with, I rebuke Capitalism and states as well as organized religion (or any hierarchican institution or structure that fails to justify itself). Really? I'm sorry to say this, but what I got from you guys is something I would really expect an Ancap do; flame someone for disagreeing with you.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 17 2015 23:27
Quote:
But wait, what?! Flogging?! Are you insane?!

Nope. But I've totally had my fill of stupid men.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 17 2015 23:38

Wow... You really made me even more repulsive to Feminism now. Thanks sad

patient Insurgency's picture
patient Insurgency
Offline
Joined: 10-05-15
Oct 17 2015 23:59

I can't believe I am taking the time to write anything in response to this. I'm new to this website but at least ffs I understand that women are people!

Like i said I'm new to this website (ish) and I only occasionally post because I really care about this issue I will make a small attempt at getting through to this guy.

Firstly let me ask a few questions for the original poster:

1) Do you agree that women are full human beings with the same fundamental psychology and intellectual ability as men? If not please provide "evidence" to the contrary for me to debunk.

2) don't you think context is important? For example if I call you, say "scum" or "ignorant hateful nasty piece of shit" it would simply be a one person insulting another. But if I declared that I am in a position of authority over you, of which I'm definitely not, and I called you that, don't you think the impact, the intent and the ethically questions raised change? Even at all? For example, let's say I'm your boss, and I have to ability to fire you, and then I call you "an ignorant nasty piece of shit fucking pleb you should do as he's fucking told". would that be a bit different?

3) if you have a very punchable face, can I punch you? If you say yes I understand why you think women should be harassed.

4) if you attend a social gathering where people have have agreed to certain rule's or guidelines, like "no smoking in my house please!" And you decided to flout them and say it's wrong to even have any, what normally happens?

No. 1 is the most important because it that is what I belive sets you apart from anarchists; you don't belive that all people have rights and should be free from oppression.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Oct 18 2015 00:10
sexistcreep wrote:
You really made me even more repulsive to Feminism now.

This we can agree on!

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 18 2015 00:19

You have to be really creepy and not only a bit thick to think that hollering at a stranger is a compliment.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 18 2015 00:48
anarchist-psycho wrote:
I can't believe I am taking the time to write anything in response to this. I'm new to this website but at least ffs I understand that women are people!

Like i said I'm new to this website (ish) and I only occasionally post because I really care about this issue I will make a small attempt at getting through to this guy.

Firstly let me ask a few questions for the original poster:

1) Do you agree that women are full human beings with the same fundamental psychology and intellectual ability as men? If not please provide "evidence" to the contrary for me to debunk.

2) don't you think context is important? For example if I call you, say "scum" or "ignorant hateful nasty piece of shit" it would simply be a one person insulting another. But if I declared that I am in a position of authority over you, of which I'm definitely not, and I called you that, don't you think the impact, the intent and the ethically questions raised change? Even at all? For example, let's say I'm your boss, and I have to ability to fire you, and then I call you "an ignorant nasty piece of shit fucking pleb you should do as he's fucking told". would that be a bit different?

3) if you have a very punchable face, can I punch you? If you say yes I understand why you think women should be harassed.

4) if you attend a social gathering where people have have agreed to certain rule's or guidelines, like "no smoking in my house please!" And you decided to flout them and say it's wrong to even have any, what normally happens?

No. 1 is the most important because it that is what I belive sets you apart from anarchists; you don't belive that all people have rights and should be free from oppression.

In response to what you said the last: oh, nononono, I would certainly consider myself an anarchist, an anarcho-communist if you will, but not a feminist, because I do not agree with everything that feminists advocate. I agree with feminism for the most part, but not all of it. I do believe that all people should be free from oppression and have equal rights, but I would not agree that catcalling is oppression, but a mere compliment taken as an insult and then shaped in a way that makes it seem like the end of the world.

1) Yes, I do agree that women are full human beings. I was simply trying to point out that it is capitalism that causes catcalling to occur most of the time and it is what makes a lot of women think that they should dress up like that and I see that it is absolutely disgusting. I just see that it is capitalism that we should blame and abolish and not the cat-callers, same way as you don't corrupt a person who due to their conditions within a system resorts to robbery and whatnot, but you blame and try to abolish the system that makes them do so. Does this make a bit more sence to you?

2) Not sure what you mean by the context. Words are just words. If someone threatened me, I would certainly be cautious of that person, but unless they made an attempt to actually attack me or if in power actually oppress me, then I do not see that it is legitemate of me to beat them up or whatever.

3) Yeah sure, why not! (Fucking no. Do you think I'm an idiot?)

4) As I said before, I am not against rules and that for one I hated the fact that euphemism was used there (Rules being called guidelines when they're actually rules. Big difference there, you know!), and for two that the rules that this site has I found to not justify themselves. Yes, people can have rules, but if you establish rules, you need a justification to each rule that you're putting in place. If justificatikn cannot be given, then it is illegitemate for anyone to enforce the said rule.

But thanks for taking this a bit more seriously than others smile

EDIT: Oh, I forgot something - If I were to see someone get cat-called on the streets, I would certainly interviene and tell the cat-callers to leave the person they're catcalling alone. It is not something I would get in a fight with them though. Also, in terms of feminism, I pretty much agree with what George Carlin has to say on it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 18 2015 00:37
Quote:
Fleur wrote:
You have to be really creepy and not only a bit thick to think that hollering at a stranger is a compliment.

Wrong; although I would agree that catcalling may sound quite creepy at times, the intentions behind it is what you need to look at. Is catcalling's intention for oppressing you, creeping you out and what not by the person who catcalls you OR a way in which they show how they perceive you based on your looks or that it is done for the sake of intimidation (an insult)? I'm guessing the first one is how you get the message, however the intention is not as such most likely. I've been catcalled and though I felt like the other person was being creepy and trying to oppress me, it was in fact simply a way for the said person to intimidate me, so it is an insult and not something for me to kill them for (that would be insanity for fuck sake!).

patient Insurgency's picture
patient Insurgency
Offline
Joined: 10-05-15
Oct 18 2015 01:01

Omg. Let me try to clear things up for you.

A lot of what I wrote is implied. Some of the other people here would get what a meant a lot more then you did.

Firstly, and I'm not the best person on here to make this effort, to be an anarchist you must be opposed to all forms of oppression. To be a feminist you simply need to understand that women are being oppressed and that something to be done about it. So thus, to be an anarchist you must be a feminist, and if you are not a feminist you must not be an anarchist. You may say that the oppression is not real, in order to try to challenge my argument, but I suspect you would agree that some form of oppression exists so it is up to you to bring up that one.

The context in which someone says something matter to it''s meaning and it's impact. If somebody is oppressing you and they say something to reinforce that relationship, that actually matters. Hence why the n word is more hateful and oppressive of black people, then say "vanilla face" is to white people , or why noone gives a shit if someone rolls there eyes and says "men".

In your response to the first question I post to you, can you read the "anarchist FAQ" on "infoshop.org" . This will help you understand that anarchists are opposed to robbery, and that is why we are opposed to property, among many other things.

I asked you if you look punchable in the hope that you would understand that, if someone looks a certain way, that does not mean you are permitted to coerce them. It is coercion to harass women.

patient Insurgency's picture
patient Insurgency
Offline
Joined: 10-05-15
Oct 18 2015 01:19

TRIGGER WARNING!!!

I got two minutes into that clip before I had to stop it. Noone rapes anyone for pleasure. It is an act of violence. If you want to know what the intentions are, look at the effect. The evidence is that attacks on women are linked with how vulnerable that person is. Not how attractive that person is.

Don't post bollocks like that on here please.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 18 2015 02:09

I will admit, I more often than not have trouble understanding certain phrases with complex words, so I guess I'll apologise for that...?

Anyway, yes, I am against oppression, however, as I stated before, I do not see myself as a feminist because of the reasons I listed in the very first post of mine in this topic. If I had no problems with these, then sure, I'd be fine, even perhaps proud to call myaelf a feminist, but since I have disagreements with some things that, I guess most if not all feminists advocate, then I think it would be wrong for me to call myself a feminist.

Not sure what you mean by "reinforce that relationship". From what I understand, I would say that I agree that oppression, if imposed or attempted to be imposed should then be dismantled as it is illegitemate, however having someone say something that sounds oppressive even though they don't have any higher status then what's the problem there, I really don't get it. And the rest of what you said can literally be applied to what people who are against basic insults and strong language say. I just see you trying to draw a line to certain type of insults because reasons. Sorry, but it does not convince me enough.

And I know Anarchists are opposed to robbery, however I also know that anarchists try to abolish the system that makes people resort to robbery, and quite frankly also oppose private property as you mentioned. In an anarcho-communist society, really there would be nothing to cause robbery, so I'm confused as to what you're trying to tell me here. I will look up those sources later on though.

Clearly this is a straw mans first off, as I said, I'm against stalking (which is a type of harrassment) because you're invading another person's personal space and that I oppose touching strangers without their permission intentionally in private spaces (another type of harrassment I oppose). Cat-calling on the other hand is not physical, but verbal and so this cannot be a comparison to whatever you made up with that punchable face idea of yours (really creative though, I must say xD ), because I would oppose your idea as it is physical, whilst cat-calling isn't, and so I do not see cat-calling as oppressive/coercive but as a mere insult (intended to be a compliment but whatever) . I hope you understand what I'm trying to imply with this.

Also, you're coming at a standppint where if I agree that women are oppressed and that oppression overall should be abolished, I should too be against cat-calling because it's what most feminists perceive as oppression, even though I myself do not.

In response to your second post:
Dude, calm down, try and go through the whole video. The first part of it is mainly on rape, but I'd say about half way from the video, he addresses feminism.

And wait, vulnerability did you say? Well that changes everything! Why didn't you say this earlier?! ... Still I do not see how that justifies violently punishing people for cat-calling though. If it's rape, stalking, touching I absolutely agree... Not cat-calling though. I see that you should defend the person who is being insulted by the people cat-calling her/him, but that does not justify you to use brute force upon them if they are not using or are attempting to us brute force on you or the other person.

Deal with physical violence by using physical violence and deal with insults through insults. Having an insult titled "cat-calling" does not make it something that if said should be punishable through physical and violent means.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Oct 18 2015 03:47

Catcalling is not a compliment, it is street harassment. It is also dehumanizing, objectifying, humiliating and scary. Yes scary, because we're actually pretty scared of men a lot of the time. We've all had situations when an interaction with a man has gone nasty, or witnessed it, or heard about it from a friend, so strange men giving us sexualized, aggressive attention is scary. Catcalling is when someone thinks that they are entitled to invade your personal space, demand your attention or demand a response from you. It's a fucked up sense of entitlement that someone feels they have any right whatsoever to pass comments on our tits or our asses or whatever thing some knuckle-dragging asshole wants to hoot at you.

You have to be pretty dumb to think that this sort of interaction is positive or just not give a fuck about the feelings of others. Study after study have shown that the vast majority of women do not like being catcalled and it makes no difference whether someone doing the hollering thinks it's a compliment. Compliments are something which is supposed to make you feel good. Catcalls make you feel like shit.

And fuck George Carlin. He's dead and was probably never subjected to sexualized street harassment in his life. Try listening to the actual lived experience and opinions of real living women rather than an old dead comedian.

seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Oct 18 2015 06:22

Excellent explanation from Fleur.

And XirmiX, I don't know where you get this wack notion that feminists want to punish cat-callers with physical violence? Flogging was mentioned earlier, but it was clearly a joke. No punishment is advocated except the punishment of social disapproval and shaming. That's a natural consequence. If someone acts like an asshole, they should expect to be treated as one.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Oct 18 2015 09:15

Very good explanation from Fleur.

As to the second part, l don't care if somebody wants to belt a cat-caller. That said, not sure that it would have the correct educational impact. But l speak for myself. There is not such thing as speaking for feminists, cause l am sure different women would have different preferences.

To this X guy, your thinking is just so fucked up. lf women are telling you that they don't like to be catcalled, that they find it insulting and often threatening, that is your answer and all the info you need.

As to another question - it is true that sometimes some women are not treated as inferior. BUT SO WHAT? To make a comparison, some waged employees have good salaries, some are given wide autonomy in their work, some even have some degree of decision making ,,,, but none of this means that there isn't, in general, a problem with the employer-employee relationship, exploitation etc.

This is all OBVlOUS - there are always exceptions to descriptions of societal problems. But those who are looking for the exemptions in order to downplay the rule (or at least the general tendency) are just acting in the service of the problem. ln other words, although l think it is legit to questions some aspects of certain feminist stances (and let's be clear - bourgeoise feminism is not anarcha-feminism), the kind of argumentation here, that there is something wrong with feminism because not all women are oppressed, is really poor.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 18 2015 09:34
Quote:
it's what most feminists perceive as oppression, even though I myself do not.

Almost all women perceive it as unwelcome, not just "feminists." And if you don't think it's a bad thing to do that officially makes you less progressive than Playboy magazine.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Oct 18 2015 11:31

You never get a man (correct me if I'm wrong here) by themselves wolf whistling a woman. Its always as part of a group. Its communicating something, not, to the poor women having to put up with it but to their mates. It part of that 'great' male institution, **banter** that by being offensive to each other and sadly, often to women, functions to reinforce friendships, group hierarchy and solidarity.

XirmiX
Offline
Joined: 8-10-15
Oct 18 2015 12:51

Seahorse, I up-voted you. Verbal to verbal, brute to brute (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth...?). So yeah, on this part of cat-calling I can agree on, so, if someone cat-calls you or someone else, you do NOT have the right to use brute force on the cat-caller if he (assuming that the cat-callrr is a he) himself does not use brute force or does not attempt to do it to you or the person they cat-called or whoever else. And I did actually thought that Fleur would wanna whip cat-callers to death or something. That joke seemed more terrifying to me than cat-calling itself.

On the other part of cat-calling, I still don't perceive it as harrassment but as more of an insult though. Do not see it as big of a deal as stalking, touching and ultimately raping (there might be other type of harrassments I've missed out on, but you get the idea).

Mr.Jolly I'm pretty sure, someone, somewhere, whilst on their own has wolf-whistled a woman. They do this in cartoons all the time and since media has a big impact on people, well, it's just what you'd expect to get in the real world as people pick up what they see on the tv.

Rob Ray, cat-calling someone who's a stranger to you, to me seems the same as swearing at and/or insulting someone who's a stranger to you. Both of these instances seem pretty much the same to me and I do agree that people should not do that in those instances. Not to say that they should be physically forced not to do so, but that it is bad to do this during these types of instances. Cat-calling does seem like a type of insult to me and I don't think anyone can make me think otherwise.

And also, from you saying that as a "punishment" you should insult or whatever a cat-caller, well... That just confirms that it is an insult, because when someone insults someone else or you, you probably more often than not insult them. Cat-calling is an insult, though I don't see that there is any point in discussing this further, because we'll be going round in circles as me and you both agree on how cat-calling should be dealt with.

Akai, Jesus fucking Christ! No; I never said "not all women are oppressed" or "not all men have advantages that women don't". You're up-right strawmanning me here. My first concern was that there are instances where men are the oppressed and women are the oppressors and that I find it disgusting that feminists take these instances for granted.

And if you or someone else insults a cat-caller, I won't give a shit, I might even join in with you or the other person insulting him, but if you or someone belts someone for cat-calling and I am there to witness this, I swear I will punch the hell out of you or whoever else is belting the cat-caller. Unless the cat-caller uses or attempts to use brute force initially themselves, you have no fucking right to belt them. And you think I'm insane.

And yes, I get women find cat-calling insulting and threatening. Still does not give them or someone else to belt the cat-caller. How am I the fucked up one. I'm starting to think that you're not actually a Feminist but a Feminazi from tumblr or some shit.

Quote from Fleur: "Catcalling isn't a compliment, it is a street harrassment".
Strawmanning me again -.- I see it as an insult, not a compliment. It is intended to be a compliment, however quite clearly that is not how the message is taken a lot of the time.

And as I said before, I do give a fuck about someone being cat-called, but unline some of you here I wouldn't let a cat-caller have brute force being used on them if he didn't initially use it himself.

Pretty much everything you say can be applied to basic/strange language insults. You keep throwing things at me in a way that just does not convince me that cat-calling is anything more than an insult.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Oct 18 2015 13:28

Xirmix, no one gives a shit if you're 'convinced' or not. You started by saying you're not a troll and you really want to understand blah blah. You've then made no attempt to understand a single point raised. Either you're an arsehole or an idiot.

Mr Jolly, men do cat-call when the're on their own, and there's something even more intimidating and sinister about it I think.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Oct 18 2015 13:32
XirmiX wrote:
Pretty much everything you say can be applied to basic/strange language insults. You keep throwing things at me in a way that just does not convince me that cat-calling is anything more than an insult.

The difference is one is based on centuries/millenia of oppression and the other isn't. Like, if I call someone stupid*, it's not loaded with the same meaning as cat-calling, which is (as Fleur mentioned) a declaration of a man's entitlement to a woman's body (even if only verbal) backed up by a cultural history where not long ago wives were basically the property of their husbands, rape survivors are routinely blamed/disbelieved, women's 'acceptable' sexual behaviour is policed by society etc etc.

To use an analogy with race: if I call someone a dickhead or I call someone a nigger; they're both insults but the latter is obviously WAY worse because it's backed up by all the history of race science, slavery, lynching, police brutality etc.

If you don't get that difference then I don't really know what else to say.. sad

* Also, worth pointing out you're not comparing like with like here as the situation that you would usually insult someone (i.e. some sort of conflict with someone you've encountered) is different to cat-calling (which is some stranger shouting at another stranger)

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Oct 18 2015 13:40

I want to agree with commie princess, men do cat call women when they are on their own. I remember this guy who did and then followed me in his car and several streets later blocked me with his car in a side street to tell me he didn't like the expression he'd seen on my face when he catcalled me, now you can imagine how I felt in this situation, especially as he'd waited till I was crossing the road in a small side street with not many people about. Also I'd offended him with the expression on my face, I hadn't shouted at him or even looked at him, I just looked upset, so he followed me for several streets to shout at me about it.

Cat calling isn't like insults. It's intimidation.