over his head.
London SlutWalk - now *11th*June, 1pm Trafalgar Square
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
- Status
I find it iluustrative of how deeply embedded misogyny is and how far we still have to go that so many people are indulgent of sexist "trolls" on a thread about the very real gender imbalances and implied violence against women that persists in society. "Ah, he's justa a troll and he's played you," they say. Would they take the same approach on an analogous thread about racism and racist violence, I wonder? If the troll was spraying parallel hate about black people? Would the troll themself think it acceptable, just to amuse themself?
Next point: context is everything. It may be pragmatic under other circumstances to warn an individual woman that she is taking risk by wearing a particular outfit to a particular location, shameful though such pragmatic advice is to admit. But if you are offering it as situation-free generic advice then you have crossed a line from pragmatism to control. If you want to use a catholic analogy then it's more akin to telling catholics to keep out of *every* town centre after 10pm. It becomes about the institutionalisation and acceptance of intimidation and fear and their use as a control mechanism.
Besides which, on a thread which is about why it *shouldn't* be the norm that women are routinely afraid to wear certain things to certain places, it is tactless at best and possibly even highly counterproductive to say that this fear is better circumvented by the women themselves modifying what should be harmless behaviour.
Besides which, on a thread which is about why it *shouldn't* be the norm that women are routinely afraid to wear certain things to certain places, it is tactless at best and possibly even highly counterproductive to say that this fear is better circumvented by the women themselves modifying what should be harmless behaviour.
Third issue: I thought Captain Hurrah's introduction of *another* underlying problem was spot on, notwithstanding my above post. Libertariansim, the atomisation of society and the insistance that so-called "free choice" exists at all, let alone is king, is not only at the heart of this debate but is actually part of the very problem the march is trying to address. Once you start insisting anything is all about the individual and that individual's wants, the consequence is the internalisation of the idea that personal gratification outweighs other considerations. I don't think that's healthy.
That said, I think that's a much wider issue and this march exists within the society it finds itself, trying to do something in the here and now. Let's address the violence first and we can worry about the underlying trends later.
That said, I think that's a much wider issue and this march exists within the society it finds itself, trying to do something in the here and now. Let's address the violence first and we can worry about the underlying trends later.
Treacle Toes
Time
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
I could not be arsed to read them but I heartily endorse some and reject some of your points for no logical reason.
past caring
The Cathars were right
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Just my 2p worth but having read some of your posts here I feel that you often come across as very coarse, aggressive and actually not very respectful of women or yourself.
I appreciate that you want to promote your blog to this "huge invisible audience" and I also appreciate that there is a huge audience who like to fuel their fantasies by reading erotic stories that were (in reality of fantasy) written by a woman.
But when I read something like this for example
and I wonder how you really feel about yourself and your body.
I think it likely that even the most committed enthusiast of recreational sex with strangers would find terms such as "having a poke" to be fairly grim, especially when used by a woman in reference to her own body.
You talk of others spouting misogynist opinions but seem unconscious of the self hatred that is evident in some of your own posts.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
fair point
Clair De Lune
Apocalypse cocktails
I actually find it fairly offensive that just because I pointed out grit was an obvious troll that somehow I am indulging or giving him an approving slap on the back. I was not the one engaging with him and seemingly getting quite wound up by what was basically a Bernard Manning esque parody.
I think that the point that rutita and ymu were making is that talk like that should never go unchallenged, no matter if they believe they not genuine beliefs of the poster..and that's fair enough. Personally I thought engaging with him in the manner they did was counter productive.
I think that the point that rutita and ymu were making is that talk like that should never go unchallenged, no matter if they believe they not genuine beliefs of the poster..and that's fair enough. Personally I thought engaging with him in the manner they did was counter productive.
I think if this were on a thread about racism and all the comments were in exact parallel, you would have approached those objecting to the grit-equivalent in a different way, or not at all. At least, I hope you would. Your tone would have been different and, quite probably, your attitude would have been different.
Obvious trolls say what they wanna say deep down but just do it with a wink.
nicely said kabbes.
Clair De Lune
Apocalypse cocktails
I'm not sure about that to be honest, I think if it had been about race it would have been more apparent to everyone it was a troll. Check out the first thread in the dustbin for an example of people refusing to engage with it.
Clair De Lune
Apocalypse cocktails
Bit of a generalisation there. We have all met overt sexists, they are easy to parody.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Personally I think you need people to play devil's advocate to have any serious discussion on forums.
Otherwise it would be a case of:
I think obviously wrong thing is wrong.
I obviously agree.
So do i.
...
...
...
End of thread.
By posting a load of nonsense earlier on I was challenged and that produced gems like this:
A reasoned explanation of why something is wrong rather than just emotive rantings and name calling.
Otherwise it would be a case of:
I think obviously wrong thing is wrong.
I obviously agree.
So do i.
...
...
...
End of thread.
By posting a load of nonsense earlier on I was challenged and that produced gems like this:
A reasoned explanation of why something is wrong rather than just emotive rantings and name calling.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Got some scientific evidence to back that up or are you just making assumptions?
What do you want, a link to a scientific study that says you and grit are dickheads?
temper_tantrum
The beauty of the ride
To be fair, there aren't many people on this thread who haven't ended up looking like dickheads, one way or another.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
Some how I doubt grit is really a secret misogynist. 
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Or some evidence of your mind reading superpower that enables you to know what people REALLY think.
Well you've told us what you really think about women who dress up and get drinks brought by men haven't you. And I think that makes you a bit of a dick.
revol68
what, fucking what?
I think women who look for men to buy them drinks in clubs are wankers, does that make me a sexist or something, or just someone who thinks such behaviour reproduces the most pathetic ideas about relations between the sexes.
revol68
what, fucking what?
also it's worth pointing out a distinction between sexism and hatred of women, they aren't the same, infact sexism can come from a misguided paternalistic concern for women, a certain infantilisation of them, it's patronising and backward but it doesn't put them on the same level as misogynists who actively hate and seek to hurt women.
Probably just means you should mind your own business tbh.
revol68
what, fucking what?
or those women should get some self respect.
I don't think it has anything to do with self respect
Blokes fancy you, you can take advantage of that. Genuinely, I don't think self respect is the issue there.past caring
The Cathars were right
For those that are interested, I'll clarify where I am on this - and quite why I've ended up locking horns with ymu....
My attitude to the slutwalk - and to sexual violence and harassment of women - I made clear in this post - no 299.
The "debate" subsequently moved on with Gromit's rather ridiculous railing against women who supposedly con men out of drinks with the promise of sex. I said nothing, but did comment on Edie's (post 396)
with (post 400)
Entirely sarcastic - I did no such thing, clearly. I was simply parodying what appeared to be Edie's approval of mercenary behaviour. But that (also clearly) was in no way agreeing with any suggestion that women who might flirt with/talk to men with the intention of drinking for free then bring sexual harassment/unwanted touching upon themselves.
Next post was a self-deprecating piss-take;
which (probably rightly) went ignored until pk stuck his oar in;
to which I replied;
Old animosities did, unfortunately, flare in consequence - posts 420 - 429. And ymu interjected;
That post was clearly directed to the posts from me, pk, paulie and pickman's - and not to anything that might have been posted earlier by Gromit or gavman. So I took her up on it;
And in what followed, I made clear why (posts 434 - 444) but I'll expand. I have no issue with objecting to the derail, no issue with a "take it elsewhere" response and no issue with objecting to the behaviour - it was the clear attribution of such behaviour to maleness, to biology that I was pulling her on.
And I did that for a reason - the whole fucking point of this thread is, surely, that it is neither inevitable nor excusable that men will behave in a particular way (sexual harassment/rape) if women behave in a certain way (dress "slutishly" or accept drinks from men in bars). That behaviour is learned and it can be changed - in my view, that change can happen to some degree on an individual level, but will largely require a different sort of socialisation and the way that society thinks of what it is to be a man or a woman. Of course, that's perhaps another debate, though I've no doubt that such change is possible.
In the particular context of this kind of debate, I do think that the clear implication that I was objecting to in that post of ymu's - that objectionable behaviour in men is explained by maleness, by biology, needed addressing. Her response?
Fair enough. But equally - fuck her.
My attitude to the slutwalk - and to sexual violence and harassment of women - I made clear in this post - no 299.
The "debate" subsequently moved on with Gromit's rather ridiculous railing against women who supposedly con men out of drinks with the promise of sex. I said nothing, but did comment on Edie's (post 396)
I totally used to do this
with (post 400)
One time, I got a woman who I'd flirted with on holiday to send me a bullseye for the train fare to Manchester so I could go up and see her for the weekend. Spent it down the pub, of course - fucking mug.
Entirely sarcastic - I did no such thing, clearly. I was simply parodying what appeared to be Edie's approval of mercenary behaviour. But that (also clearly) was in no way agreeing with any suggestion that women who might flirt with/talk to men with the intention of drinking for free then bring sexual harassment/unwanted touching upon themselves.
Next post was a self-deprecating piss-take;
Tbh, I am starting to get sick of women coming up to me in boozers and asking - without offering to buy me a drink first - whether I want to go outside/come back to theirs for a quick bunk up.
which (probably rightly) went ignored until pk stuck his oar in;
to which I replied;
Old animosities did, unfortunately, flare in consequence - posts 420 - 429. And ymu interjected;
That post was clearly directed to the posts from me, pk, paulie and pickman's - and not to anything that might have been posted earlier by Gromit or gavman. So I took her up on it;
And said without a hint of irony, too.
Quality.
And in what followed, I made clear why (posts 434 - 444) but I'll expand. I have no issue with objecting to the derail, no issue with a "take it elsewhere" response and no issue with objecting to the behaviour - it was the clear attribution of such behaviour to maleness, to biology that I was pulling her on.
And I did that for a reason - the whole fucking point of this thread is, surely, that it is neither inevitable nor excusable that men will behave in a particular way (sexual harassment/rape) if women behave in a certain way (dress "slutishly" or accept drinks from men in bars). That behaviour is learned and it can be changed - in my view, that change can happen to some degree on an individual level, but will largely require a different sort of socialisation and the way that society thinks of what it is to be a man or a woman. Of course, that's perhaps another debate, though I've no doubt that such change is possible.
In the particular context of this kind of debate, I do think that the clear implication that I was objecting to in that post of ymu's - that objectionable behaviour in men is explained by maleness, by biology, needed addressing. Her response?
Fair enough.
But equally - fuck her.- Status
Similar threads
