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?
Quote: If you are
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?
Oh christ, just read number
Oh christ, just read number 3.... yuk.
How 'attractive' other people's clothing is is none of your business you slimy creep.
Can this place go more than a
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.
Xirmix - you may find readers
Xirmix - you may find readers here are not used to quite as many daft questions fired at them in one post.
plasmatelly wrote: Xirmix -
plasmatelly
Well...
No, guys, I legit want
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!
XirmiX wrote: No, guys, I
XirmiX
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.
commieprincess
commieprincess
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?
Quote: So how do feminists
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.
Believe what you want, Webby,
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?
Hmm, Fleur, now you made me
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.
Quote: But wait, what?!
Nope. But I've totally had my fill of stupid men.
Wow... You really made me
Wow... You really made me even more repulsive to Feminism now. Thanks :(
I can't believe I am taking
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.
sexistcreep wrote: You really
sexistcreep
This we can agree on!
You have to be really creepy
You have to be really creepy and not only a bit thick to think that hollering at a stranger is a compliment.
anarchist-psycho wrote: I
anarchist-psycho
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 :)
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
Quote: Fleur wrote: You
Fleur
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!).
Omg. Let me try to clear
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.
TRIGGER WARNING!!! I got two
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.
I will admit, I more often
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.
Catcalling is not a
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.
Excellent explanation from
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.
Very good explanation from
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.
Quote: it's what most
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.
You never get a man (correct
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.
Seahorse, I up-voted you.
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.
Xirmix, no one gives a shit
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.
XirmiX wrote: Pretty much
XirmiX
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.. :(
* 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)
I want to agree with commie
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.
Ed wrote: XirmiX
Ed
Oooooh... That makes way more sence. Thank you. So you don't take context for granted. Well, I'm not the type of person who takes context too seriously, hence my thoghts on cat-calling are a lot different than that of many of you. But again, thank you for clearing it up. Although I have not changed my mind, my Feminist concerns/disagreements/questions have been answered. I just think it's taking it a hit too far to take context this seriously. Though, cat-calling can turn into a conflict if the person that got cat-called stands up for herself...
Though, I still don't have answers on my concerns about this website and answers on the 3 questions I listed at the end of my first post.
Thing is it's not really
Thing is it's not really about how you feel about context that's important.
A white guy can shrug off being called gringo because in almost all cases it's not accompanied by bad memories, or family members' stories of when it was shouted at them when they were being beaten up. A black guy can't shrug off being called nigger because it is accompanied by exactly that, and a long, vile history of direct, violent repression. A woman can't shrug off catcalling because stories like the one fingers mentioned are everyday ones.
If you've been on the receiving end, and so have your friends and family, context isn't just an abstract concept for debating class. And the thing that you might want to look into a bit is the very high likelihood that your friends and family have been on the receiving end, and you just don't know. It might be worth asking them about it.
Rob Ray wrote: Thing is it's
Rob Ray
Yes, I understand it now, it's just that I'm not the type of person that takes context too seriously. Within a couple of thousands of years later, if human civilization still exists and we live in an Anarchist societes across the globe, this history might even be forgotten and context will just get staler and staler. So, I don't wanna take context too seriously. It seems pointless to me. I understand your concerns, but context just feels stale to me, but each to their own.
Can we now move on to the other subjects of this topic please?
I think the first thing
I think the first thing worthy of note here is that you've completely skipped over the women in this discussion letting you know they experience cat-calling as intimidation not as 'just' an insult to respond to me, a man, on the topic even though I have no direct experience of cat-calling. I think that's interesting.
XirmiX
As Rob Ray says, it doesn't matter whether you do or not because it's not your context. But the least you can do is try to understand it. Like, if you take away context, what's really the problem of being stopped and searched by police? They stop you, ask your name, ask you to empty your pockets, and on you go. But that's obviously not the case though, is it? With the context, it's obviously a case of harassment often with serious racial undertones reaching back to slavery. You can't separate them.
But let's say you do. If we follow that line of argument and you're in an argument with someone. If it got really heated, I imagine you would call them a dickhead (or something else similar, I def would). Would you call them a nigger? Separate them from context and they're just two words we use to insult people; so would you use one and not the other? If so, why?
Quote: Either you're an
Our friend here has proved that it's entirely possible to be both.
Perhaps we better elaborate
Perhaps we better elaborate more on the "context". Here is a good start.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/international-women-s-day-2015-the-shameful-statistics-that-show-why-it-is-still-important-10091504.html
Ed wrote: Quote: I think the
Ed wrote:
Yep, this.
I really hate people
I really hate people insulting others for no legit reason or just being disrespectful towards others whether behind their backs or directly to them, its abusive and so I can't think of any reason why it should be tolerated, but catcalling isn't just insulting its also threatening.
On Feminism, the only problem I personally have with it is for me it can be a bit like Marxism. It can be obscure sometimes when a feminist perspective is applied to things where I just can't understand why its relevant for example ecofeminism, I don't really understand why they draw a causal relationship between a male dominated society and environmental harm, but other than that and since I haven't studied feminist ideas and theories I mostly just stay quiet on feminism. I agree with them much more than I disagree with them and where there are any issues then its just minor things where I don't understand something.
Edit:
Another problem I thought of is that sometimes I find that young girls who are feminists do have a bit of a distrust or a dislike towards men, and are perhaps interested in feminism to rebel against a male centred society, so its more of a lifestyle thing for them than political ideology. Personally I find that a bit annoying, but then I am also accepting of it, I mean I can understand it, so I wouldn't say anything of it.
Also another problem is liberal feminist ideas, but I'd still mostly agree with the feminist principles behind them, just not the idea that striving for a society of gender equality without abolishing capitalism and the state will give freedom to women and men.
Ed wrote: I think the first
Ed
Okay, first off, what a cop says to you does not matter; it's what they do or intend to do or intend to make you do that matters. With words, a cop cannot harm you. With threats yoy are warned, but still no harm done. Once the cop actually initiates the act is when the harm is done. A cat-caller isn't a form of "authority".
Second of all, I myself wouldn't give a crap to use either of these words as insults if people were okay with it. Of course, I do not care about context too much, but other people do (as many of you have presented) so I do not use words that are racist, sexist etc because it will make people think that I'm a racist or a sexist. I genuinely am not, I am against acts that make certain genders or races be seen as inferiors; acts that are physical, mind you. I do not, and I don't think I will care so much about context, so idk why people keep downvoting me. I can't change that, I simply don't care because I do not see it as that big of a deal. It's true that it's bad, but I just can't care less! I simply can't!
And to whomever said I was being ignorant towards the women here who find it to be intimidation and a threat than insult; I don't find it in any way that big of a problem as you're making it out to be! It wouldn't bother me too much if someone insulted, thretened, cyberbullied, "intimidated", said something racist to me or to someone else. I find that you must be cautious when people cat-call, threaten, is being racist etc to you or someone else, but it is not fucking life threatening or invasion of another's privacy. Stabbing, raping, shooting, beating, stalking - that is what I find to be absolutely concerned about.
I understand your concerns, I am not ignorant! I simply do not care and cannot care in any way more or at the same level as you do about these type of things. Each to their own, goddamit. You can't make someone care by telling them the same thing iver and over again and again. If we keep talking about this, we'll get nowhere, so can we move on to the next topic please?
Quote: I understand your
No you don't, and yes you are.
By your logic, why is
By your logic, why is stalking or groping any different from an insult? Neither of them in total isolation cause physical harm.
seXist man said: Quote: It
seXist man said:
Well good for you. Have a cookie. You are not, however, an expert on anyone else, you don't get to decide whether or not something is important, intimidating, or effects them in any way whatsoever, so move along. You don't get to say how anyone else should react to anything. And as for how women should feel about catcalling, your opinion is pretty fucking irrelevant.
X, how cat-calls are intended
X, how cat-calls are intended really isn't the point. They're clearly an expression of a patriarchal society, a society in which men have more power than women - a society in which men have power over women in all sorts of personal and institutional situations.
Now, given that anarchism is opposed to all hierarchy, anarchists are not going to approve of cat-calls, given that they're such a clear expression of patriarchy and social domination.
As to your other questions, the anarchist FAQ is always a good place to start: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ
Wakey fucking wakey. I can't
Wakey fucking wakey. I can't believe you lot are arguing the toss with this complete and utter bell end :D
commieprincess wrote: Xirmix,
commieprincess
Yeah i should have said rarely (compared with group cat calling), rather than never, apologies.
The lone wolf type is obviously more intimidating. Had a number of these characters over the years, one who broke into the office in the building of an employment training course I was doing to get my address and turned up at 1:30 in the morning. Shitted me up. Flatmate threatened him with a machete and he took his leave.
Sigh... Khwawaga, I DO
Sigh... Khwawaga, I DO understand the resoning behind faminists opposing cat-calling, hpwever that does not mean that I completely and utterly agree on it. Idk much about patriarchy myself, because I was pretty much brought up in a house where there was matriarchy instead.
I understand that the reason they find it even more than an insult (which to me doesn't really make a lot of sence, but ok) is because it is reflective of the history in which women were treated unfairly in comparison to most men. Tell me how I'm ignorant once more, you prick!
Commieprincess because it's invasion of one's privacy. I don't see how cat-calling is though, I see it as just an insult.
Fleur this is where you are being ignorant; you can hold your view point on cat-calling the way you do, I don't care, but the problem now is thay you people are trying to force me into thinking the same as you do, which I clearly won't because I don't find your reasoning to justify the viewpoint enough. I understand the reason why feminists hate cat-calling so much (as I stated before) and I would react to it if I had seen it on the streets the same way pretty much anyone of you would, so what's the fucking problem anymore?! Why are yoy bashing me with this stuff over and over again after I clearly stated that I understood your reasoning goddamit?! We've come to a point where you lot are trying to make me feel bad and accept your way of thinking merely for disagreeing with you by the slightest. THAT'S pathetic! And THAT'S ignorance!
Mr.Jolly glad that you stood up to a stalker... Wait, you threatened him with a machette? I hope you weren't actually planning on whacking him with it.
XirmiX wrote: Mr.Jolly glad
XirmiX
I didnt a flatmate did, I hid at the top of the stairs, shitting myself.
Mr. Jolly wrote: XirmiX
Mr. Jolly
Oh, ok. I hope you haven't encountered that guy since. And I apologise for mis-reading what you said. I hope you're ok now.
Mr X - have you ever been cat
Mr X - have you ever been cat called as a women? If the answer is no then it's time to shut the fuck up.
X, while it may - or may not
X, while it may - or may not - be true that you were brought up in a matriarchal household, I can assure you that you were brought up in a patriarchal society and, as such, you do know a lot about patriarchy. You may not be conscious of the role and effect of patriarchy, but give it some thought, do a bit of reading, ask the women on libcom...its affects are not that difficult to understand.
As I already stated and as you conveniently ignored, cat-calling is one of the most direct and most personal expressions of patriarchy. Whether you view cat-calling as an insult or whatever, that's not the fucking point. It should be abundantly fucking clear that women find it an aggressive, unpleasant, often quite frightening thing to deal with. For both those reasons - social and personal domination - anarchists oppose that shit.
I'd suggest that - even if you disagree - you shut the fuck up at this point. Give it a few days to think it over cause, right now, you're only making yourself look like a twat.
how can one defend not taking
how can one defend not taking context seriously? The present is literally the result of the past and nothing else. Words acquire meaning through context -- through how people interpret such words due to a history of personal and cultural experience. Hence, it doesn't matter what some man thinks his intention is whilst cat-calling. Firstly, the very conditions for the possibility of something like cat-calling is founded in a man's sense of entitlement to say these things to a random woman, a man's perceived authoritative position founded in a culture that legitimates that authoritative position. And that's just critique of cat-calling when its considered to be "harmless" -- but alas, it never is, and you do, as others have pointed out in this thread, have women harmed and intimidated by cat-calling and encounters that are initiated by cat-calling everyday. Xirmix, you are sounding a real liberal individualist right now. You need to be more critical.
One question: what are you
One question: what are you trying to get from me right now? I really don't get it.
Because:
1) I acknowledge that feminists perceive cat-calling as worse than an insult because of history
2) I would react basically the same way you do if someone cat-called somebody
What is your problem right now?!
I think what people want is
I think what people want is for you to acknowledge that cat-calling is an anti-woman, anti-feminist and, therefore, an anti-anarchist act. And then stop defending it.
Well, I guess I won't then.
Well, I guess I won't then. There's just no way that I would. If you don't wanna move on to the next topics, well, fine with me, I'll look for answers elsewhere. If you could give me a justified enough reason for me to think so, I would; you don't simply tell one to think in one way and make them think that way, that's not how reasoning works. Anyway, I'm just done. If you're gonna post more on this, I will read it, but unless it actually makes me think differently I wkn't reply, because otherwise we're just going in circles. I'm sorry if you hate it so much that my opinion isn't like yours is on this, but that is just how it is. If my reaction to cat-calling is the same as yours basically, well I don't see the point in trying to make me think of it as an apocalipse.
XirmiX wrote: I wkn't reply,
XirmiX
First sensible thing you've posted.
What really astounds me from
What really astounds me from reading XirmiX's posts is that he clearly has no appreciation of the different forms of feminism. To him it's just Feminism, no difference between liberal, communists, anarchists, 2nd wave, 3rd wave etc. It's all just these women complaining about catcalling and wanting to be mean to men.
Do everyone a favour and stop fucking posting nonsense until you actually have a better understanding of what feminism is, its history, various expression, what patriarchy is etc. And most importantly, try to talk to some women and feminist and listen to them. Try to picture yourself in their shoes. It just seems like you've got no fucking empathy whatsoever.
For example, why do some women not even dare listen to their iPods while walking home be it night or day? That never even occurred to me to be an issue before my girlfriend told me (and that got me really thinking about how fucking scary it must be to just be a woman in our society). Just recently I read a story about a women who was followed for several blocks in NYC because she was catcalled and didn't respond because she didn't even hear him due to listening to music on her headphones (not that it's her "duty" to respond in the first place, but that's what a lot of catcallers expect). Dude followed her to tell her how rude she was. And that's not fucking intimidation and harassment to you? That is not a man feeling entitled to someone else's attention just because he's a man and she's a woman?
But nah, to you it's just words and insults (as if psychological bullying isn't even a thing). I also guess that you don't realize that for some women it's not just one man catcalling her per day. It will be several, maybe every fucking day. That's systemic harassment because of patriarchy, and if that shit happened to me I'd be fucking scared, angry and would eventually want to flog the fuckers.
I still think you're probably
I still think you're probably a serial wind up merchant but just in case...
What you need to do is surrender to the fact that you don't understand. Nobody can change the way you think just like that but that doesn't mean that what somebody more experienced says isn't of greater value than your opinion, coz that's all it is - an opinion based on nothing at all. I can only assume that you think yourself a pretty smart guy otherwise you wouldn't keep dribbling on like a 12 year old who's just discovered the wonders of individualism.
No one is going to answer your other questions because they know what's coming. You're not fucking listening, just running your mouth, so it will serve no purpose to engage with you.
So in conclusion, shut up, look up humility in the dictionary and try a whole lot harder. Failing that, just fuck off.
XirmiX wrote: Tell me how I'm
XirmiX
Missed this the first time. You're an ignorant fucking fedora-wearing, neckbearded gamer gater.
Where could I find some
Where could I find some decent sites/articles or whatnot that gives a broad information on feminism? Not much that I can find other than wikipedia and right-wing propaganda from the news.
Also, saying that I'm okay with stalking is a strawman. I've said countless times that I disprove of stalking because it is invasion of another's personal space.
Maybe you should try using
Maybe you should try using the mysterious "search" function on the very site you're posting on.
XirmiX wrote: Where could I
XirmiX
Credit where credit's due here.
Another option would be to start a thread "What is feminism to you?" and then let folks offer some responses. My advice here, X, would be to sit back and take in the responses. You seem to be a guy who can get quite, umm, excited. So if you see something you disagree with, give it a few days, and then really try to formulate a clear, non-confrontational question.
Quote: Also, saying that I'm
It's not a straw man. Catcalling and stalking basically express the same male entitlement to women's attention. You may think catcalling doesn't represent that, but when women tell you otherwise you should fucking listen. They're the ones on the receiving end of this, not you.
After thinking about this for
After thinking about this for quite a while and researching some stuff about this, all I can say is; I don't know. I found out a bit more about feminism as I went along the road of research. I found myself still, agreeing on most and despising some bits of what feminists advocate.
Some things just seem insane to me, like the flogging of cat-callers, though I understand now why there are feminists who have the views which I myself find crazy.
Feminism just boggles my mind. I will make a stand for the rights of women when and where needed and when I can, though I will not act against my own beliefs and understandings for the sake of it (I would not permit someone who cat-called someone to be flogged for instance. Curse at the cat-caller, shout, insult, heck I'll even join in on that, but if the cat-caller doesn't harm anyone physically or doesn't invade one's privacy, flogging and whatnot is not what I would allow to happen to one and would interviene if this were to happen).
What reminded me a lot about how women are treated in societies across the world is this video (Just like George Carlin, I would not call myself a feminist and I see certain things that common feminists advocate simply crazy, though I would, from the bottom of my heart stand up to the patriarchy that has oppressed women for centuries):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dP5Pv4HthIk
I will admit I cannot fully understand this oppression though, partly because I'm male I think and I don't get harrassed as much.
XirmiX wrote: Some things
XirmiX
That was only said as a joke. I already explained it was only said as a joke. Flogging cat-callers is not a feminist position. Though I find it hilarious that you think it is!
Being a feminist doesn't mean you have to agree with everything every feminist said. That would be impossible because, as others have pointed out, feminism is diverse. Feminists disagree with each other all the time. Feminists will even despise some of what other feminists advocate.
Quote: After thinking about
Clearly you didn't do that much research if you sincerely believe that flogging cat callers is a feminist position. And I notice that you don't point out what aspects of feminism you disagree with (but for flogging!), and whether those aspects are tied to a particular expression of feminism. For example, quite a lot of people on this site will have some fundamental disagreements with liberal feminism for well, being liberal and overly concerned with formal-legal equality.
All I can say is try much harder.
Khawaga wrote: Quote: After
Khawaga
I know there's feminists who are liberals. That's why I did my research more on anarcha-feminism than anything.
But what's with the pressuring? You guys keep pressuring me, whilst I'm simply trying to get answers and make a connection.
There was something that caught my eye when I looked into anarcha-feminism on infoshop. There was something about sexes and that it was said that there are feminists who want to break the difference between the two sexes or something... I can't really describe it, though it's something I found rather strange and was wondering what that could mean exactly. Does it mean that there are feminists who want the label of a woman and a man be taken out from society or to even go as far as remove the aspects (body parts) of people which make people have different genders? It's really confusing, but if that's what the article implied on infoshop then how would that even work? How would you describe a person with different attributes than another in terms of sex body parts? Or how would we even reproduce without having people of both genders? I'm really confused.
I'm also confused as to why people keep downvoting me. It's like we're on the same page but arguing... About what exactly again? I'm so confused!
You got to walk before you
You got to walk before you can run. If you can't get that as a male you have no idea how it feels to be a woman in a patriarchal society(as demonstrated by your stubbornness on the subject of cat calling), then it's clear that confusion is heading your way when you try to look in deeper. It's like trying to study quantum physics before you can do your 2 times table. Just chill FFS, there's nothing wrong with not understanding something but it's pretty daft to take a position on something before you understand it or arguing a point on which your opinion is irrelevant such as cat calling.
I don't understand feminism too well myself but I try and as far as I'm aware I never take a stand on any aspect of it that I don't have a solid understanding of, I just return to my default position around this stuff of women know better than I do.
Xirmix You need to work out
Xirmix
You need to work out the difference between sex and gender, they are not the same and it's clearly causing you confusion.
Fleur wrote: Xirmix You need
Fleur
No no no, that much I understood. According to infoshop, feminists (or at least anarcha-feminists) see gender as a title which is given based on one's attitude, looks and whatnot and that sex is the actual sex (whether you're male or female). On gender part I could understand why there are feminists who are against such labels, but not on the sex part.
Also, is that good that I'm a bit confused...? For now at least?
Yes, confusion is fine. But
Yes, confusion is fine.
But it would help if you posted some text or a link, because I am not sure what at all you're referring to.
Khawaga wrote: Yes, confusion
Khawaga
I do not want to sound biased, but because I am male, I thought I could understand feminism more if I looked at feminism from a male feminist's perspective, so I looked into this article a male anarcha-feminist wrote down:
http://www.infoshop.org/library/feminism-male-anarchist-perspective
For some reason I cannot find the exact quotation, but there are some bits that suggest that there are feminists who want to remove the difference between sex completely. I myself would understand why there would be feminists who would want the gender difference to be removed (because it identifies people from their behaviour and generalizes the sexes), though I see that identifying sexes, as in the natural sex differences is essential for many things, including science, so if we were to remove that, then how could we progress?
Are you kidding me? In order
Are you kidding me? In order to understand feminism you have sought out an article on feminism from a specific male point of view? Would it actually kill you to listen to women on the subject? And how did you get from a pretty shitty article on infoshop, which rattles through a list of 2nd wave feminist writers, with no analysis at all, to women wanting to remove genitals?
Try this - Easy to read,
Try this -
Easy to read, actually written by a woman.
http://libcom.org/library/feminism-everybody-bell-hooks
Fleur wrote: Try this - Easy
Fleur
This is a good one. I also recommend it.
Well, I'm going to assume
Well, I'm going to assume some good faith on your part here X, so here's a rough breakdown.
Gender is a social construct. The expectations that people with penises experience and the expectations that people with vaginas experience are results of the societies in which we live. Given that those societies are patriarchal - men hold the lion's share of power in political, economic, and familial situations - women suffer as a result of the gender role they're prescribed as a result of their genitalia.
Feminists want to (a) demonstrate the social nature of gender and (b) challenge those gender roles. Some want to eliminate gender as a concept altogether; others want gender to become a much more fluid concept. But, between here and there, there's a desire to empower women and challenge the institutions of patriarchy and patriarchal personal relationships.
Now, about the madness of removing sex organs or whatever, there is the "SCUM Manifesto", maybe that's what you came across. But I'm not even sure if that shit's serious and, in any case, it gets no traction around here, so there's no need to continue discussing it or anything similar on these forums.
Looking back at this, I guess
Looking back at this, I guess my friend was right; I'm wasting my time.
I won't say anything more. I would, but then again, no matter what, it's gonna be looked down on. Though, will anyone be willing to give me some comments/answers to the questions I asked in terms of this web site? Or, answers on the questions I asked at the end of my wall of text? Well, if you're not willing to, remember this:
If you say something is happening, but see people skeptical about it, prove it to them. Trying to make people feel bad isn't going to go anywhere. At this point I've understood that this is a place where a lot of "third wave feminists" are. And what you're doing is hurting your cause; by trying to win arguments by making the other person feel bad, making up stuff/twisting logic for personal gain - why are you people doing this?
Anyway, I've shed enough time here. I probably won't make any more posts unless attitude towards people with a different understanding and standpoint chages. And you call this direct democracy? What democracy? You aim to achieve a near-perfect society, yet you show the exact opposite of what you've claimed you think should be practiced. You can be an anarchist as well as a feminist. You can be a feminist but not an anarchist. And you can be an anarchist but not be a feminist. Because being one is not being the other; they hold certain values which are mutually exclusive.
You came back three months
You came back three months later to say that? I don't suppose you managed to do any reading in the interim....
Fleur wrote: You came back
Fleur
I did. And quite frankly, it either explained jackshit to me or solidified my point. You people brag on about something, but show no proof of any sort whatsoever. So you ahould have expected that from me. Also at this point I don't give a fuck about up/down votes, it just shows how strongly stupid you lot are.
Also, if you really want me to not take this for granted, then fucking provode me with some proof for your claims. You're talking like it's so easy, it'll all pop up on the first page of google search. But no, there's nothing that I could find anywhere that supports your fairytales. Or may be, it's that you think feminism should be common sense... Well, no, it's fucking not. I'm still partly confused and still partly looking at feminism as if it's total bullshit!
EDIT: Oh wow, 3 down votes, but NO responses :D okay, I guess you ran out of bullshit to spew. Cya!
you only listen to stuff that
you only listen to stuff that confirms what you already believe, so i'm sure it would make a lot of sense to talk to you again
radicalgraffiti wrote: you
radicalgraffiti
Pfft, yeah, it's not like I asked you multiple times for some proof and evidence for what your statements suggest. No, OF COURSE I did none of that (I did, multiple times, so you only have yourselves to blame for you pitiful and feeling-hurt responses -.- ).
XirmiX
XirmiX
of cause, no none responded to you before, your just a guy with some questions, which no one can seem to answer, not a massive misogynist looking for excuse.
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
An excuse for what?! I made this topic SPECIFICALLY to get answers, but you shittards gave me zero decent responses!
XirmiX
XirmiX
looks like you started this thread to talk shit mate, you'd have bin fine with the responses if everyone told you feminism was a load of crap
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
What? Seriously? I posted my thoughts and then I get shit for it and therefore no legit answers. I was hoping someone would come, analyse what I've said and try and debunk it, But no, NONE here took my points, analysed them and then tried to respond. NOBODY. While I, on the other hand, didn't go all emotional on your shit-talk towards me until now and actually addressed points and questions that you had raised.
Don't get fucking emotional if someone says shit about feminism. If you truly believe you're right, then do what a smart person would do; instead of throwing "boo, you suck, you racist, sexist, anti-feminist, privileged dickhead", how about you address the fucking points that the person has raised and debunk them. I mean, that's what you do when people talk shit about anarchism, isn't it? Then fucking do the same for feminism! If you cannot give decent response addressing the points that someone has raise against feminism, then it will make it look as if you've been wrong the whole time and you're some nazis who want to control people because of personal beliefs (And honestly, that is the impression I myself have from feminists about feminism). Kind of like what religion does.
Quote: Anyway, I've shed
Ehhem.
XirmiX
XirmiX
yes i'm the emotional one not you.
and who knew that legit answers where ones you agreed with, i'll keep that in mind for the futur
radicalgraffiti
radicalgraffiti
Wtf?! No, in the time of trying to understand a particular topic, I try to look at what both points of view can provide and then make a conclusion based on what makes the most sense. Also, I am enraged because of the fact that you continued with the bullshit that everyone was spewing. If you even TRIED to address what I had said, then I wouldn't have fucking enraged, okay?! Geez! You lot on the other hand flipped out just like that at the beginning of the thread, even though I clearly spoke my understanding and standpoint and all and asked questions which I was hoping to get answers to.
Fuck this, I'm done.
So you came here, months ago
So you came here, months ago - honestly I'd forgotten about your existence - fire off a bunch of questions, spew a bunch of bigoted crap and generally behave in a rude and entitled way and now you pop back to moan that no-one could be bothered to engage with you while you were behaving like a spoiled, petulant child.
Women on this site explained to you why your opinions were crap but you took no notice of us talking about our lived experiences but you come up with the tactics of every internet fuckboy with the "citation please!" demands. It's possible that people might have found the time to do the basic legwork for you if you weren't such an ass. Nobody owes you their time or an education just because you feel you have the right to demand it. You don't. My time is far more valuable to spend googling shit for people who can't be arsed to do it themselves. If you want "proof" of something (beyond the people directly involved/effected by something explaining something to you,) if you feel that the only thing you need to do is read a document, which is clearly to you is better than actually listening to people, go do it yourself, you lazy ass. Having come here and said our opinions are crap and you're not going to listen to us, I fail to see what motivations we had to enable your lazy, belligerent attitude and do any work for you. As it was I linked you to a book you probably couldn't be bothered to read. I don't need to explain anything to you or anyone else. Nobody owes you anything. I would suggest you hone your googling skills. People here are usually pretty accommodating about answering questions if approached in a respectful way but don't expect people to spoon feed you information. Try a little self-education, it's a pretty big in anarchism. You could benefit from it.
Fwiw, if you consider yourself an anarchist, you are completely off the mark with your ignorant and shitty attitudes to gender. More like a rude man who fancies himself playing at being a radical.
Ha! Oh yeah! Forgot this was
Ha! Oh yeah! Forgot this was a thread that actually happened with an actual man-child with actual swinging empty ballsacks for brains.
Quote: actual swinging empty
Oh Jesus, lol! That has made my day!
Okay, I'll simply ask two
Okay, I'll simply ask two questions: why should I care that someone has been cat-called? And why do you care?
[admin snip: no flaming] You
[admin snip: no flaming]
You should care because:
(a) Someone could/will feel bullied, harassed, insecure, unsafe, scared, etc
(b) It perpetuates patriarchy - and some of the worst aspects of patriarchy, including the idea that men have some sort of right to comment on, objectify, and ultimately control women's bodies.
(c) It's a small, but very real example of the oppression women face everyday. And as an anarchist, I oppose oppression.
I think the more important question - which you should be asking yourself - is why you're so unwilling to accept the testimonies of women on this thread who've explained how catcalling makes them feel and why they view it as quite an insidious expression of patriarchy, misogyny, and women's oppression.
Stop dialoguing with this
Stop dialoguing with this creep and just tell him to fuck off.
Yeah, X, by your logic, if I
Yeah, X, by your logic, if I threaten to batter you senseless (and you consider it a genuine possibility that I might do it), it doesn't matter up until the point I actually do it. After all, if you're scared for your safety, that's just your feelings and I don't really care about feelings..
PS Now imagine you live in a society where if I did batter you, the first question people would ask is 'What did you do to make that guy batter you?'..
X - seriously mate, I guess
X - seriously mate, I guess it's far enough to examine how you feel about this issue, with the understanding that there is no way you can know how these actions can make women feel. That does not mean that you are entitled to an opinion as to whether it is acceptable for men to behave this way. You are not a victim of a patriarchal society. You do not know what it feels like to be denegrated, commodified for your sexuality and even individual parts of your body. You do not know how it feels to be leered over, rubbed up against by total strangers on crowded tube trains and be blamed for all these things simply because you have different genitals to half of the population. You do not know and CAN NOT KNOW these things. Therefore, you need to understand that what you think about this DOES NOT MATTER because you don't know what you are talking about.
I assume you are working class and subject to the oppression of the ruling class? How do you like it when one of these arrogant shits presumes to tell the poor what they should do and how they have the wrong attitude? I guess you furiously think, how dare you, what the fuck do you know about my troubles? Well, that is exactly how you've been talking on this thread. You are not welcome to post this shit. You are however, welcome to read the vast amount of information on this subject available here. If you are going to engage in a debate on this YOU ARE OBLIGED TO LISTEN TO THOSE WHO KNOW WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT.
Sigh... I would reply, but I
Sigh... I would reply, but I don't think there's any point. Well, be it as it is. I don't support feminism as a movement and probably never will. Either way, I hope that even though I do not agree with your opinion, I will still be able to be connect with people here decently in terms of anarchism, because as you might have read from various of my posts that relate to anarchism, you could pretty much see I'm on the libertarian left. And no, I wouldn't think "how dare you, what the fuck do you know about my troubles" if some rich douchebag said that poor should do this and be that and what not. I wouldn't get emotional about it, I'd simply not care; because I would know the rich person is talking nonsense.
Well, I don't know what I'm supposed to think anymore. Good luck with... whatever you're doing with feminism, just don't think that people are anti-women merely because they don't agree with feminism.
Quote: emotional Lol, the
Lol, the classic misogynist term for describing women's reaction to sexist assholes. Good work comrade, you slipped that one in very discreetly.
Quote: I would know the rich
People know you're talking nonsense, fool, the difference is you specifically came on a libertarian communist website to talk nonsense about women, splattered your nonsense all over the tracker, demanded that other people sort your shit politics out for you which and screamed blue murder when they tried to do so in ways which didn't just indulge you.
It's not a matter of people caring what you think, it's more like being annoyed with a drunk flatmate crashing into the kitchen wiping his mucky hands all over the walls. Except worse, because you're not drunk, you're just a self-centred, unintelligent sexist fuckwit.
Rob Ray wrote: Quote: I
Rob Ray
No, I do not care only about myself. I'd sacrifice myself for the sake of the world if it came to it. Other than that, I don't think saying anything will make either of us take the other perspective. I'm sorry :(
And yet you can't bring
And yet you can't bring yourself to look at things from the perspective of women or give a shit about issues they tell you over and over again are important. Cry me a river Mr Self Sacrifice.
I'm sorry you feel like you
I'm sorry you feel like you haven't got any answers. Have you watched LibertarianSocialistRant's video on feminism and anarchism? I thought it was quite good.