Sexual street harassment in Brixton

[Kizmet]

I made it clear that I saw your behaviour as the catalyst for all of this? I'm not a fan of confrontation, and the reason I barely post here anymore is because some of the schoolyard shit and nastiness annoys, frustrates, and unnerves me. All of the back-and-forths relating to you on this thread haven't made pleasant reading, regardless of who they have come from, simply because it's pointless distraction from what could have been a really interesting thread on a very pertinent subject.

The schoolyard shit and the nastiness is the reason I am the catalyst.

As you said yourself I tried to make an interesting point with regard to this subject. I didn't attack anyone or bring any personal politics into it. Straight after that the same few posters were in bringing insults and misleading comments.

Show me different. Show me where I said something that was a catalyst? You can't.

So what are you now saying? That just by posting I am a catalyst and thus shouldn't post or only post in agreement? That's all about control who gets to say what, no?

That's exactly the kind of stuff that you say makes you post less than you used to. So here I am trying to stand ground for peoples right to have different opinions, not have to be scared or apologetic and not be part of some popularity contest... and taking a lot of shit for it.

Its ugly and I don't blame you for being tired of it... I wish it wasn't like that too.

While there are good sides to a community there are also downsides... and people have to fight against those too. An easy life is tempting but you'll end up with a board with fewer and fewer new people on it.

If you truly do want to see a more progressive and open boards with more honest discussion then I think you should be on my side.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh fuck me

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Fwiw I've tried to engage with your arguments previously Kizmet, and I've also ignored you/chosen not to respond on other multiple occasions. I think this is the first time I've actually argued against you in a less patient and more personally attacking style, because frankly it got to the point of being exasperated with some of the utter shit you come out with. And generally I'm really not a poster who goes in for that sort of thing because I've always held it's important to argue the points, not the poster, even if tensions start rising. I'm not some bitchy member of a clique, I hardly post on here anymore. Yesterday was just the point I finally snapped against you continually dismissing the experience of women, coming across as (as I said previously) apologist and a bit creepy on top.

And in complete honesty, if I was getting this reaction from so many people, particularly including from members of a particular group (which I am not a part of) who have traditionally and continue to experience oppression, regarding arguments I was making relating to said oppression, I would be having a period of reflection on why that might be rather than accusing everyone of being part of a monothought clique.

 

[Kizmet]

That's why you'd never take an argument such as mine on face value. Because you seem to be convinced that anyone who disagrees with you must be being swayed by others, and not acting from their own beliefs or observations. You believe that you can only ascertain the veracity of any argument against you if it is accompanied by an equal or greater argument against the people you are disagreeing with. You'll accept an argument against you only if it actually agrees with you.

Do you understand how silly that sounds?

Or just a simple cut and paste of something I said that was racist or sexist or any other catalyst.

Don't you see? In the absence of proof I am still willing to listen as long as you can show that you are fair.

That's not silly at all. That's actually very fair.

 

[Kizmet]

Yesterday was just the point I finally snapped against you continually dismissing the experience of women, coming across as (as I said previously) apologist and a bit creepy on top

And I remember asking you to simply show me what I said that was apologist.

I mean its that easy.

The problem here is that a lot of people like to spread rumours but no one seems to have any evidence. The likes of shiftybaglady can admit to misreading me twice but instead of apologizing or reassessing just goes on to be insulting. Its a bit sad, really.

Its interesting how both you and vintage paw say you post less because of this kind of personal shit nowadays and I've only been back a few months after a couple of years off. So it can't be because of me you hardly post anymore.

I see myself fighting against the influences that caused you to leave but unless you can understand why I guess to you it just looks like more fighting.

As I said its a losing battle... but doesn't mean its not worth fighting.

Lets remember one important fact... just because someone is popular it does not mean that they are a good person. Nor does being unpopular mean that you are a bad one.

This fact is slowly being lost on urban.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Fwiw I've tried to engage with your arguments previously Kizmet, and I've also ignored you/chosen not to respond on other multiple occasions. I think this is the first time I've actually argued against you in a less patient and more personally attacking style, because frankly it got to the point of being exasperated with some of the utter shit you come out with. And generally I'm really not a poster who goes in for that sort of thing because I've always held it's important to argue the points, not the poster, even if tensions start rising. I'm not some bitchy member of a clique, I hardly post on here anymore. Yesterday was just the point I finally snapped against you continually dismissing the experience of women, coming across as (as I said previously) apologist and a bit creepy on top.

And in complete honesty, if I was getting this reaction from so many people, particularly including from members of a particular group (which I am not a part of) who have traditionally and continue to experience oppression, regarding arguments I was making relating to said oppression, I would be having a period of reflection on why that might be rather than accusing everyone of being part of a monothought clique.

I was going to respond to this argument earlier in the thread, but decided not to. The exact phrase I was going to use was that I thought Kizmet sounded like an apologist for certain behaviours, and that was what I found problematic with his argument. But I decided not to because I didn't want to get drawn in. Just a few posts later I saw you mention the apologist thing, so I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Thank you for saying it.

Kizmet - take a look at the first post I made in this thread. I talked about understanding differences in culture as being important to this debate. To some extent, that's similar to what you first started arguing. However, I believe I made a more thoughtful and balanced argument, in that I positioned it in the context of also understanding the importance of the effects behaviours and practices have on people regardless of cultural differences and possible intent. It was that aspect of the subject that you time and time again seemed to be willfully ignoring and were not prepared to entertain. That is why your initial posts on this subject came across as being apologetic for those behaviours, particularly when you were challenged on the subject and refused to do anything other than dig your heels in. It didn't seem that you wanted to engage in a real debate about this. Your manner is important here as well, not just the words you say. It's possible to have a discussion about cultural differences, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for behaviour, and sadly that's what your argument came across as being.

If you don't accept that criticism, there is little I can do about that. All I say is what I perceived from reading this thread. I do not care about any beef you and others may or may not have with each other that might be spilling over here. I'm more interested in debating the issues around the subject of street harassment than I am whether people are pissed off with others on a message board. You have the power right now to turn this around. You have the power to go back to your original arguments, to think about the problems some people had with them, examine why they might have those problems, and move forward with some interesting and intelligent discussion. If you do that and others attack you on other unrelated grounds, well we can all read into that what we need to, can't we? If you are truly concerned with the quality of discussion that happens on urban, lead from the front, be the bigger person, and see if you really can divorce these board politics from a serious discussion on a serious problem.

As it stands, you sound like you are trying to position yourself as a crusader for all that is right and good, but coming off as someone with a massive chip on their shoulder who isn't prepared to ever entertain that any argument they make might be flawed in some way. Why don't you prove otherwise?

 

[Kizmet]

Vintage Paw Thank you for your advice.

I did notice that you made a very similar point to mine... but what you see as "positioning it in a context'" I see as apologizing and being nervous to just come out and say it straight and simply.

I felt your post was overlong to make a simple point... that's not a criticism of you... but of a board environment where everyone feels like they have to preface everything they say with apologies incase they offend one of the regulars.

Or get flamed... this thread is littered with examples of people being nervous to make their points. And that's not because of me.

Imagine what would have happened had a few it these flamers/regular posters not immediately jumped down my throat as soon as I posted? Perhaps you would have had time to see the conversation develop and understand from where my point came.

That's how it should work, in my opinion.

 

[Vintage Paw]

To be more precise, your argument on culture went as far as to say that there are different cultures who have different traditions wrt street culture, and we should realise that because it would make things easier to deal with - the implication being that we should recognise it's just a part of someone's culture and if we did so we wouldn't feel victimised by being cat-called anymore. You placed the root of the problem at the feet of those who suffer street harassment, by suggesting they should just understand it's a part of someone's culture. You went no further. That's why it sounds like it's apologist. "They can't help it, that's just the way they were brought up. Give them a break. You need to learn to let it wash over you." When challenged about that position you got defensive, simply kept reiterating it over and over without any kind of further investigation. As my post on the same matter showed (I hope), while understanding cultural differences can be one starting point, it needs to move beyond that to understand the effects it has on people regardless of that, because of the context of real gender bias and sexism within society, the threats that women face daily, and the institutional oppression and objectification women face. Your argument ignored that context, and you seemed to consistently ignore any reasons for criticism by simply restating your point and digging your heels in. The rights and wrongs of the way you and others have been acting towards each other wrt any historical problems you have with each other don't interest me. What I care about is why you weren't prepared to take on board any criticism of your original post and dug your heels in in quite the way you did. It's that behaviour that explains why I believe you were the catalyst here, regardless of whether others unnecessarily continued and exacerbated the problem.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Vintage Paw Thank you for your advice.

I did notice that you made a very similar point to mine... but what you see as "positioning it in a context'" I see as apologizing and being nervous to just come out and say it straight and simply.

I felt your post was overlong to make a simple point... that's not a criticism of you... but of a board environment where everyone feels like they have to preface everything they say with apologies incase they offend one of the regulars.

Or get flamed... this thread is littered with examples of people being nervous to make their points. And that's not because of me.

Imagine what would have happened had a few it these flamers/regular posters not immediately jumped down my throat as soon as I posted? Perhaps you would have had time to see the conversation develop and understand from where my point came.

That's how it should work, in my opinion.

But your argument wasn't developing. The times you went back to it to try to explain what you meant you simply reiterated the same thing over and over and didn't engage with what could have made your argument better and more nuanced.

And no, I'm not apologising or being nervous about anything when I post things. When I make an argument I do so because it's what I believe. Everything I said in that post is how I see the issue. It has nothing to do with offending or placating anyone. It's sad that you see things in those terms.

And as for being overly long - that's your opinion. I am verbose by nature. A search of my posts over the years will show that. Why say in 100 words what you can say in 1000, amirite? But seriously, sometimes if you want to get across a relatively nuanced point, 3 bullet-pointed short sentences won't suffice.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't know who you are, Kizmet, I don't know about any history you and others here might have, and I don't consider myself to be a part of any of these little so-called cliques you appear to be obsessed with, but reading through this thread gives me one impression that is very, very clear: you're doing everything in your power to be a shit-stirrer, to get people's ire up, and you come across as a complete and utter sad twat. While you said one thing early on that could have been the starting point for interesting discussions, when anyone said anything at all that could be considered a dissenting opinion to what you wrote you went off at the deep end and started throwing around half-thought-out and frankly incomprehensible bullshit and have barely said anything of any real consequence wrt this subject since. You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder, that has clearly affected your ability to string together thoughtful posts on this subject, as your only line of defence (apart from pathetically slagging others off all the time) seems to be to reiterate the things you said earlier in more and more convoluted ways without adding anything to it but while thinking that you're elaborating. You're not.

I'm sure you could have added an interesting strand of debate to this issue had you not got so fucking caught up in personal politics and patheticness along the way.

What are you achieving by continuing? A sense of power at being able to upset people? Rather apt, I guess.

Welcome to the clique.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Welcome to the clique.

Do I get a badge?

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does someone 'prove' impartiality? For all you know I might be the silent leader of a shadowy cabal on here and everyone is secretly in my thrall via PM, following my every move.

I knowI follow your every move, but only as one VP to another, not because you're the Grand Mistress of my Lodge or anything!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do I get a badge?

And a handy-dandy decoder ring for clique messages.

 

[Kizmet]

To be more precise, your argument on culture went as far as to say that there are different cultures who have different traditions wrt street culture, and we should realise that because it would make things easier to deal with - the implication being that we should recognise it's just a part of someone's culture and if we did so we wouldn't feel victimised by being cat-called anymore. You placed the root of the problem at the feet of those who suffer street harassment, by suggesting they should just understand it's a part of someone's culture. You went no further. That's why it sounds like it's apologist. "They can't help it, that's just the way they were brought up. Give them a break. You need to learn to let it wash over you." When challenged about that position you got defensive, simply kept reiterating it over and over without any kind of further investigation. As my post on the same matter showed (I hope), while understanding cultural differences can be one starting point, it needs to move beyond that to understand the effects it has on people regardless of that, because of the context of real gender bias and sexism within society, the threats that women face daily, and the institutional oppression and objectification women face. Your argument ignored that context, and you seemed to consistently ignore any reasons for criticism by simply restating your point and digging your heels in. The rights and wrongs of the way you and others have been acting towards each other wrt any historical problems you have with each other don't interest me. What I care about is why you weren't prepared to take on board any criticism of your original post and dug your heels in in quite the way you did. It's that behaviour that explains why I believe you were the catalyst here, regardless of whether others unnecessarily continued and exacerbated the problem.

That's the thing... if you don't read it carefully and take time to think then you might come to such an assumption...

But, in actual fact, its about the exact opposite... its about taking the "victim" completely out of the context so that no questions can be asked about what they were wearing or doing or how they looked. The point was to talk about the external factors that mean that "anyone" can be a target regardless of gender/appearance/status.

You can only do that when you remove the actions of the victim from the consideration.

 

[DotCommunist]

Do I get a badge?

tatoo. and if you leave it comes off via fire or knife. Just like in 'Sons of Anarchy'

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh fuck me

Only if you supply the lube.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

And I remember asking you to simply show me what I said that was apologist.

I mean its that easy.

Well after previous interactions with you in the past where I have engaged, yet gone on to feel like I've ended up banging my head against a brick wall, plus after seeing you have similar interactions with others, this is exactly what I meant about losing my patience. And to be fair to you, it's not solely losing patience with you, as with all arguments from men in this vein. There's only so long you can offer reasoned critiques, in part involving your own deeply personal experiences, and see it be completely disregarded before you opt to either ignore or be a bit more brusque. It's got to the point where if someone can't see how their words are excusing unacceptable behaviour, then what is the fucking point of me pointing it out to them. I've had these sorts of arguments to death, and I've got to the point of fed upness where I can't always stay reasonable. I suspect I'm not always alone in this.

Its interesting how both you and vintage paw say you post less because of this kind of personal shit nowadays and I've only been back a few months after a couple of years off. So it can't be because of me you hardly post anymore.

And I never said it was anything about you personally .

Lets remember one important fact... just because someone is popular it does not mean that they are a good person. Nor does being unpopular mean that you are a bad one.

But this isn't about popularity or unpopularity or goodness or badness, it's about the words people write on here.

 

[Kizmet]

But your argument wasn't developing. The times you went back to it to try to explain what you meant you simply reiterated the same thing over and over and didn't engage with what could have made your argument better and more nuanced.

How on earth do you expect it to develop in an environment when the same old faces are trying their hardest to distract and discourage it?

The fact is... as you admit... I just made a point and didn't bring any personal beef into it. Other did that.

You are asking me to be the bigger person and ignore it all. However I am confident that I am big enough and now I am waiting to see who else is big enough to call that kind of behaviour out.

And as for being overly long - that's your opinion. I am verbose by nature. A search of my posts over the years will show that. Why say in 100 words what you can say in 1000, amirite? But seriously, sometimes if you want to get across a relatively nuanced point, 3 bullet-pointed short sentences won't suffice.

I'm the other way round. In general I prefer to start much shorter and become more open if a conversation takes off.

 

[Vintage Paw]

That's the thing... if you don't read it carefully and take time to think then you might come to such an assumption...

But, in actual fact, its about the exact opposite... its about taking the "victim" completely out of the context so that no questions can be asked about what they were wearing or doing or how they looked. The point was to talk about the external factors that mean that "anyone" can be a target regardless of gender/appearance/status.

You can only do that when you remove the actions of the victim from the consideration.

The idea that anyone can be a target is only partly correct though. Removing the victim means removing the context. If we're talking about sexualised street harassment against women, then the fact that it is sexualised street harassment against women is an important factor. You have to look at the whole. Breaking parts down to investigate on their own terms has some validity, but it ultimately a pointless exercise unless you reintegrate those parts to see how and why they exist together in the way that they do.

I can understand the desire to avoid a situation where the way a woman is dressed is brought into this kind of discussion. Because that way leads to victim blaming. But that doesn't mean we abandon entire lines of discussion, and have a poorer understanding of the whole as a result. No, what it means is that we encourage detail and nuance and thoughtfulness and empathy and understanding and honesty and context. Nuance is something that is woefully lacking in so many public debates. Perhaps it has always been that way, but fast-paced internet discussion does seem to engender it more so. Arguments so often have to be one thing or the other, they can't be an intelligent mixture of several things. Our critical faculties suffer as a result.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

personally I agree, the risk of my own embarrassment and the other persons discomfort is greater than any possible benefit. So I'm very, very unlikely to initiate any sort of conversation, and have never given a stranger a compliment in my life. Far too intrusive, far too risky.

I'm well aware I conform to the standard London reputation, held by those from the provinces or abroad, as standoffish and unfriendly. Isn't the open approachability of my fil a better model, where chatter and banter are commonplace? Is it really always best to keep clammed up?

If it isn't, where are the boundaries? Clearly "show us yer tits" crosses almost all known boundaries, and I fully accept your point that "cheer up love, it might never happen" is so hackneyed it's no longer amusing, if it ever was. The weather, otoh, is too pointless and vacuous: for random banter to work some spark is needed, which implies an element of risk.

I don't know the answer to any of this. I don't personally like sexualised banter because it makes me, always an observer never a participant, feel uncomfortable. Except when apparently willing participants engage in having fun, like the pair on the escalator.

Just realised I hadn't responded to this yet. I agree with pretty much everything you've posted here. There is an interesting debate about sociability with strangers, particularly in a big city. Interestingly enough I have sometimes given women compliments (usually relating to something unusually amazing, such as a fantastic multicoloured hairstyle or an unusual but lovely item of clothing), but I've been told that I can come across as quite sweet and genuine so perhaps feel more secure that they'll be taken in the right way they're intended. And fwiw they always have been met with what seems to be genuine appreciation. However, one day I might get it wrong and look like I'm taking the piss. It's still risk assessment I guess.

I also quite like random conversations at bus stops, as long as they're not too early in the morning. I very rarely am the instigator though. My mum is a lot better at it than me, but then my mum is also one of those women who can outwardly project her internal monologue and doesn't seem to care so much what people might think of her.

 

[Kizmet]

And a handy-dandy decoder ring for clique messages.

Here's the weird thing... everyone knows that in almost every community, every social group, every organization cliques form and sometimes compete.

I mean its standard human behaviour... but no clique should get too much control or that becomes bad for everyone.

So I find it strange that you would go out of your way to try and convince everyone that somehow on urban it doesn't exist... when quite clearly it does.

It makes you look shifty.

 

[DotCommunist]

not wise to pass even favourable comment on another mans shirt at 11 30 in town on a friday night though. Maybe you can get away with it as a woman. Otherwise you are booking a cruise to the costa del bruise

 

[Agent Sparrow]

not wise to pass even favourable comment on another mans shirt at 11 30 in town on a friday night though. Maybe you can get away with it as a woman. Otherwise you are booking a cruise to the costa del bruise

No, tbf I have never complimented a random man on the street. Maybe this makes me a sexist?

The fella says that he has been complimented on a particular T-shirt at festivals and the Lambeth Country Show and he fully appreciated it each time. Mind you, he did make a Bender costume for Boomtown last year so I suspect he's a bit of a secret exhibitionist.

 

[Vintage Paw]

No, tbf I have never complimented a random man on the street. Maybe this makes me a sexist?

The fella says that he has been complimented on a particular T-shirt at festivals and the Lambeth Country Show and he fully appreciated it each time. Mind you, he did make a Bender costume for Boomtown last year so I suspect he's a bit of a secret exhibitionist.

Whether we think of ourselves as feminists or not, whether we have been in the past or are regularly subjected to sexism, and no matter how aware of it we are, we're all still creations of our environment, and as such I think it's inevitable we will do certain things that are prescribed by gendered bias, unfortunate as that is. At the very least, recognising that is useful though.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that makes you sexist. The expression of power dynamic is different, even though it's informed by the same root causes.

 

[Kizmet]

The idea that anyone can be a target is only partly correct though. Removing the victim means removing the context. If we're talking about sexualised street harassment against women, then the fact that it is sexualised street harassment against women is an important factor. You have to look at the whole. Breaking parts down to investigate on their own terms has some validity, but it ultimately a pointless exercise unless you reintegrate those parts to see how and why they exist together in the way that they do.

That's exactly my method... take it apart... examine each but individually and then put it all back together again see how it works.

But as you say this takes time, subtlety and nuance.

I can understand the desire to avoid a situation where the way a woman is dressed is brought into this kind of discussion. Because that way leads to victim blaming.

So can you now understand when people accused me of victim blaming why I just restated the original point? How can you argue fairly with people who assume you mean the opposite if what you actually say?

But that doesn't mean we abandon entire lines of discussion, and have a poorer understanding of the whole as a result. No, what it means is that we encourage detail and nuance and thoughtfulness and empathy and understanding and honesty and context. Nuance is something that is woefully lacking in so many public debates. Perhaps it has always been that way, but fast-paced internet discussion does seem to engender it more so. Arguments so often have to be one thing or the other, they can't be an intelligent mixture of several things. Our critical faculties suffer as a result.

I totally agree. And I think we have to fight for our rights to be able to have these nuanced discussions without the nature of fast paced boards destroying them. That means sometimes fighting the people we like.

Which in this case appears to be you, Agent Sparrow, Panda and JimW.

 

[Kizmet]

But this isn't about popularity or unpopularity or goodness or badness, it's about the words people write on here.

I wish that was the case but its not.

Otherwise you would be able to post something that I said that was apologist, sexist or racist directly instead of talking about how things 'seem' or what you assumed. Because those things are affected by group dynamics whereas words are easily quoteable and are not so much.

 

[Vintage Paw]

That's exactly my method... take it apart... examine each but individually and then put it all back together again see how it works.

But as you say this takes time, subtlety and nuance.



So can you now understand when people accused me of victim blaming why I just restated the original point? How can you argue fairly with people who assume you mean the opposite if what you actually say?



I totally agree. And I think we have to fight for our rights to be able to have these nuanced discussions without the nature of fast paced boards destroying them. That means sometimes fighting the people we like.

Can you see that I'm trying to move the discussion back to the subject of street harassment, whereas you can't help but keep bringing it back to you and others and any personal arguments that are happening?

I simply do not care one little bit about that stuff. Carry on if you want, I'll engage with it no longer. I'll continue to talk about the subject in hand. Join in or don't, that's up to you.

 

[DotCommunist]

No, tbf I have never complimented a random man on the street. Maybe this makes me a sexist?

my days, I can feel the oppressor vibe radiating from you even over the internet. Let my people go!

 

[Kizmet]

Can you see that I'm trying to move the discussion back to the subject of street harassment, whereas you can't help but keep bringing it back to you and others and any personal arguments that are happening?

I simply do not care one little bit about that stuff. Carry on if you want, I'll engage with it no longer. I'll continue to talk about the subject in hand. Join in or don't, that's up to you.

ok, ta.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Here's the weird thing... everyone knows that in almost every community, every social group, every organization cliques form and sometimes compete.

I mean its standard human behaviour... but no clique should get too much control or that becomes bad for everyone.

So I find it strange that you would go out of your way to try and convince everyone that somehow on urban it doesn't exist... when quite clearly it does.

It makes you look shifty.

I'm not saying cliques don't exist. I'm also not saying that they never exist.

I'm saying that your personal theorisation of a clique that exists to distract and diss you is the product of an arsehole.
A shifty-looking arsehole.