Feminist Walking Tour - March 8th (1 Viewer)

[Cormcolash]

that's called "putting words in somebody else's mouth"

everything else you wrote after it is based on this deliberate misinterpretation

so, everything else you wrote was... pointless

way to miss the point

Please explain how either of the two possible interpretations I give of that post are not what the post is about.

 

[taubstumm]

Please explain how either of the two possible interpretations I give of that post are not what the post is about.

no. if you're determined to misinterpret a very obvious point, then there's no reason for me to try to persuade you otherwise.

 

[Cormcolash]

Wow, that's completely amazing.

"You're WRONG!"
"How so?"
"I'M NOT TELLING YOU!!!"

That's a very mature attitude you have there.

Maybe the point is meant to be "Women shouldn't have violence commited against them"
Does anyone else have any other stunning revelations from the realm of COMMON SENSE?

 

[the strange guy]

My interpretation of Buzzo's post was that women who suffer at the hands of men far outnumber the amount of men who suffer at the hands of women.
Corm's point was that random violence occurs more to men than to women overall and that if anyone should be scared of being the victim of a random physical attack, it's a man.
Both are completely valid points.

But, to refer to Buzzo's point, men can also be victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by women.
If you want to talk about taboos, that is, to my mind, one of the biggest.
If we're just talking about comparing the number of attacks, than this form of violence is irrelavent on paper.
But it's probably one of the most vastly under reported forms of violence in this part of the world and is no less deplorable or destructive.

 

[taubstumm]

Wow, that's completely amazing.

"You're WRONG!"
"How so?"
"I'M NOT TELLING YOU!!!"

That's a very mature attitude you have there.

whatevz, etc

 

[the strange guy]

whatevz, etc

Comeback Of The Year Award 2008

 

[Cormcolash]

I'll keep guessing sure.

Is it "Men and women are not equal in today's society"?

Maybe that's because lots of people are complete wankers and that includes both men and women, and the results of this wankerness affect both men and women alike and are amazingly enough not gender exclusive (as illustrated in my original reply), making the above statement COMPLETELY POINTLESS.

Have I ruined the thread yet?

 

[the strange guy]

This thread was ruined as soon as it was put on Eirecore.

 

[Cormcolash]

My interpretation of Buzzo's post was that women who suffer at the hands of men far outnumber the amount of men who suffer at the hands of women.

Which is exactly what I was addressing with the very first paragraph of my reply.
Is it just me and you that seem to think that it's RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS that NO-ONE should have to suffer violence at the hands of ANYONE else?
Whether it's man or a woman suffering makes no fucking difference whatsoever, it shouldn't happen to anyone.

 

[the strange guy]

It's so obvious it makes me squirm uncomfortably.
But using the non-gender specific concept that 'PEOPLE' rather than 'MEN' should stop being dicks, it hardly makes for good feminism.
That's the crux of the problem I have with feminism.
It's too gender specific and focuses too much on masculinity and femininity while pretending to transcend gender stereotypes and perceptions.
It's like saying Louis Farrakhan has helped heal the racial divide through his black pride.

 

[taubstumm]

sexual violence and domestic violence is, almost overwhelmingly, something that men do to women

should that be ignored?

 

[Cormcolash]

Should the fact that men are almost twice as likely to be attacked by a complete stranger in the street than women be ignored?

It's a fucking pointless argument, because this shit shouldn't happen to ANYONE. Saying that problems like this are more the responsibility of one gender than the other is nothing but divisive and counter-productive.
If you want the issue dealt with, EVERYONE has to deal with it, not just men, not just women. Wake up.

 

[the strange guy]

sexual violence and domestic violence is, almost overwhelmingly, something that men do to women

should that be ignored?

That's hardly what anybody is trying to argue.
Nobody disputes that.
This is what Buzzo was saying in response to pyrate dead's statement that men can also be raped.
All that Corm and myself are trying to say is that while violence exists, it exists independent of gender and that if you look even closer it occurs more often to men.
If you want to focus on a particular category of gender specific victims and point fingers at gender specific perpetrators then sexual and domestic violence is a great place to start.
But using the example of sexual violence by males on women as an argument for greater equality between the sexes and feminism in particular, is pointless.
But of course sexual and domestic violence should not be ignored, but it is being used in a context that does not make sense here.

If you want equality start thinking equally instead of dividing everything up by gender.
Make up your mind!
Does gender matter or not?
If it does, equality will never be reached - even in your own eyes.

 

[taubstumm]

gender can't be avoided in this

men attack men in the street

men attack women in the home

these things are the responsibility of one gender

they're also the overwhelming majority of all violent crime

(this isn't even a particularly 'feminist' thing to say; it's just how things are - but 'how things are' can change)

it would appear to me that it's not "dividing everything up" by gender - it's stating the obvious

 

[the strange guy]

So is your argument that because the male gender causes most violence then all men should take the blame?
They should shoulder the responsibility?
Or should all men simply be aware that the violence is the fault of their own sex?
What is the argument?
It goes right over my head.

"I am a man and am so very sorry for all of the violence perpetrated by those with a cock just like my own."

Shall we analyse skin colour and social background along with these statistics?
APOLOGISE, WORKING CLASS BLACK MALE, FOR THE DAMAGE YOU HAVE DONE.

People are pricks, some are men, some are women.
Why take it further than that?

 

[Eddie Gorilla]

men attack men in the street

why would a complete stranger necessarily have to be a man?

 

[jane]

Did anyone at all suggest that the existence of situations that are of particular concern for women means that feminists reject the idea that there are also issues for men? Or that some people are just dicks?

Yeah, a lot of people don't see it as a big deal because they don't see it affecting their lives. Or they've absorbed some things as normal to the extent that things that are actually related to gender seem like everyday life (and maybe a bit of both, but I can't define that for anyone, and I am not going to try). And that's fair enough -- people can only take on so many causes before their heads cave in, and it would be totally lame to try to force someone to call herself a feminist. It's a choice. It's not a requirement. And there are lots of women and men out there who are sympathetic to the ideas of feminism, but feel uncomfortable with the concept. Fair enough as well.

But people, especially people on the left, frequently champion causes that don't affect their everyday lives. Being against the war in Iraq without knowing anyone who is actually there, being concerned that people have roofs over their heads and jobs to go to and food to eat -- that's part of being human, having empathy.

Frequently, feminists who speak out or speak up get accused of wanting to be in some sort of cult of victimhood. What is called empathy in relation to other causes is called self-victimisation or making-excuses-for-your-insecurities when it comes to feminism. Fine, the neoconservative types say that about all lefties, but it's a bit rich coming from other lefty types. Especially when the same old arguments get hauled out: the same dismissal of all feminists based on a single extreme example of someone saying something lame, the same suggestion that feminists pretend that there are not gender-specific issues for men.

The other point is that, yes, men are more likely to be attacked randomly on the street, and yes, women are more likely to be attacked in the home. But what continues to happen on this board especially is that the anti-feminist folks assume that feminists are suggesting that one has to negate the other. I'm sure there are occasions where a man is attacked on the street, and where the same attackers would not do the same to a woman. there might be times when the attack might be classed as gender-based violence, other times when it wouldn't be. I guess. But violence in general is a problem. I think it's fairly accepted that there are gender issues in all acts of violence. I dunno, maybe it's not. I am inclined to believe it is.




If feminism is just an anachronism, why are the feminist-friendly posts on here so carefully policed, nitpicked and twisted around and wilfully misinterpreted? If it was just a sad little club for sad little girls, it wouldn't elicit such strong negative reactions and such lame tags.


Finally, if feminism were such a boring anachronism, why did this thread turn into what it has? It was about a women's history WALKING TOUR. In other words, dealing partly with periods in history when it was indisputable that women did not have equal rights. Periods in history hauled out by anti-feminists as evidence that *they* had a point, but *we* don't. What's wrong with acknowledging that on a blustery Saturday afternoon? You'd think even the anti-feminists would want to come out to eulogise a dead movement and celebrate a job well done.

 

[the strange guy]

Frequently, feminists who speak out or speak up get accused of wanting to be in some sort of cult of victimhood. What is called empathy in relation to other causes is called self-victimisation or making-excuses-for-your-insecurities when it comes to feminism.

These concerns are usually echoed by women who in no way feel victimised by their gender in their day to day lives.
Are they wrong to feel this way?
Surely they can't be any more wrong than a woman who does feel victimised.
Perception is a powerful thing, but so is empathy.
Nobody is suggesting that not being feminist means you are incapable of empathy.

If feminism is just an anachronism, why are the feminist-friendly posts on here so carefully policed, nitpicked and twisted around and wilfully misinterpreted? If it was just a sad little club for sad little girls, it wouldn't elicit such strong negative reactions and such lame tags.


Finally, if feminism were such a boring anachronism, why did this thread turn into what it has? It was about a women's history WALKING TOUR.

I can't speak for every woman I know who don't consider themselves feminists, but of course I'll try! This is the internet after all.
It's an anachronism because they feel no need to fight for rights they already have.
For many, feminism is a historical term.
It's gender specificness is embarassing to those who don't view gender as a defining characteristic in much the same way black pride can cause the same discomfort with black people who don't view race as an important characteristic.
Most racial violence is caused by white people. So what do we do about it? What shall we tell those pesky whites?

Practically none of the women I was refering to read Eirecore so when I described feminism as an anachronism (which is my Mother's term, not mine) it had nothing to do with the development of this thread and had very little to do with the walking history tour.

 

[Cormcolash]

Did anyone at all suggest that the existence of situations that are of particular concern for women means that feminists reject the idea that there are also issues for men?

Yes, S basically said exactly this a mere 3 posts before you:

"men attack men in the street
men attack women in the home
these things are the responsibility of one gender"

(Notice the complete ignorance of violence perpertrated by women there)

Frequently, feminists who speak out or speak up get accused of wanting to be in some sort of cult of victimhood. What is called empathy in relation to other causes is called self-victimisation or making-excuses-for-your-insecurities when it comes to feminism. Fine, the neoconservative types say that about all lefties, but it's a bit rich coming from other lefty types. Especially when the same old arguments get hauled out: the same dismissal of all feminists based on a single extreme example of someone saying something lame, the same suggestion that feminists pretend that there are not gender-specific issues for men.

Funny you should write that, considering that:
1. The first suggestions on this thread of accusation of victimhood, making excuses etc. came from a woman
2. Someone "said something lame" 3 posts before this.

Anyway, enough, the rest of your post actually is just the same old boring passive agressive crap designed to draw some sort of response that you always seem to post in these discussions.

It seems to me that "what continues to happen on this board" is that discussions like this are started, people have interesting points to make to each other, you join in, make some ridiculous essay posts which basically say a load of things that everyone else has already said whilst also making sweeping unfounded assumptions about other users of the board, then someone points out that you're talking shite, then you get pissed off and start complaining about it, then the thread gets closed/everyone loses interest.

I almost feel like I can see the future sometimes.

 

[taubstumm]

why would a complete stranger necessarily have to be a man?

it could be anyone, but it's usually a man

anyway, jane's on the case now with the monster posts, so i'm backing out now and going for a walk in the sunshine

laterz loserz

:heart: