An important unexamined privilege or liberal feminism being bored?

[moves]

http://www.vice.com/read/swedish-feminists-are-so-bored-theyre-telling-men-how-to-sit-on-the-bus

Please excuse the anti-feminist tone of the article, it's the only interview with the author of the blog I could find.

I have to admit that at first sight it seems slightly silly to me. Can sitting in a certain way really contribute to oppression? But men do act intiminating in public spaces and this is obviously male privilege at play. Still jumping from sitting with my legs wide (I have to admit to doing this as a man) to oppressing someone? creating an atmosphere of violence? I just don't know.

I am very interested in what you comrades think and what proletarian or Marxist feminism would have to say about this? It could be a good opportunity to self-criticise for many - probably.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"I think one of the most problematic aspects of having such an extensive power structure is that a lot of people aren't even aware that how they act affects others."
I certainly agree with this statement, and in a male dominated society, it's men who have that kind of ideological power structure behind them (even though working class men may only have power vis-à-vis women and are themselves victims of the ideological power structure as a whole).

One way of showing dominance is not taking into consideration the space of others. Is that an "invisible and unconscious expression of power in an everyday, public space"? Yes.

That said, I'm not convinced by the entirety of the argument she makes, as she sounds like a bourgeois feminist.

[slum]

i hate when dudes on a crowded bus or train car sit with their legs apart like they've got balls the size of pumpkins, taking up three seats, you have to basically sit down on their lap to get them to move. a lot of women aren't comfortable doing that.

also: guys who step into the car when there's three dozen people behind them and don't move into the car. i guess the important person has already gotten onto the train, so we can get moving to the next station now!

male entitlement to public space is real obvious everywhere once you start noticing it.

[MarxArchist]

More constructive criticism. From the article:



What would you say to those claiming that, in the grand scheme of things, this issue is a "luxury problem"?
My point is that this is part and parcel of the kind of oppression that leads to women being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships.
Please stop. On BART if seats are empty and I'm exausted from along day at work (my job is labor intensive) I'll do the same thing (lay down) and it has nothing to do with domination of women. It's called being extremely tiered. Anyone who doesn't get up when the train begins to crowd is either asleep or being extremely rude.

Anyhow these are her examples of patriarchial domination which lead to "being raped, getting lower salaries, and being exposed to violence in relationships".

CLICK ME If YOU DARE http://machoikollektivtrafiken.se/

Men have scrotums, some larger than others. It's common knowledge here in the Bay Area on the BART train when the train is full you get to squish your scrotum by squeezing your legs together in order to make room for people. It's extremely uncomfortable but most men, when the train is crowded, endure it. Sorry I'm not dedicated enough to log photographic evidence.

Just more ammo for building an ANTI feminist movement. Great job. Way to go. Keep up the good fight.

[MarxArchist]

i hate when dudes on a crowded bus or train car sit with their legs apart like they've got balls the size of pumpkins, taking up three seats, you have to basically sit down on their lap to get them to move. a lot of women aren't comfortable doing that.


Because you're helpless. Right? "Excuse me sir/buddy/guy can you please make room? Thanks". That wasn't so hard now was it? Are you implying men would say "Fuck you go sit somewhere else"? Is this the way you really see or experience the world?

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/19/a-lesson-re-learned-on-gender-and-space/

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

AND the end result is?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/aug/03/healthandwellbeing.gender
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/aug/03/healthandwellbeing.gender)

[slum]

Because you're helpless. Right? "Excuse me sir/buddy/guy can you please make room? Thanks". That wasn't so hard now was it? Are you implying men would say "Fuck you go sit somewhere else"? Is this the way you really see or experience the world?

um, did i say that? i'm talking about the tendency of men to take up a lot of space in public when women have been socialized not to do this. women are also socialized not to ask people to move. women are socialized to make way for people. this is a double standard that comes out of a sexist culture that values men and their comfort more than women. i am not personally attacking your genitals and the space you prefer to afford them, so chillax.

also: sometimes yeah people do react that way, especially if you're talking about men in groups who are under the impression the best way to assert their masculinity is to be an asshole. women do have to think about getting into potential confrontations with men. women have to make constant calculations in public about what is and is not safe to do, not because doing something unsafe will always result in harm, but because you can never know for sure. that is, in fact, the way i see and experience the world. it's the way most women see and experience the world. it's just part of the fabric of everyday life.

it's kind of fascinating the cries of martyrdom that emanate from men when anyone suggests they look into their own behaviour. the point here is, it's just a matter of comfort and being tired for you. for many women it is something else. why is that so threatening to you?

ETA: i'm unsure what you're trying to imply with the articles you linked. the first two seem to be explaining this issue better than i am, and as for the last i am in favor of women-only train cars. if you think having women-only spaces to address a very real problem of harassment on public transport is somehow demeaning because of its connotations, i suggest as a materialist that many women would prefer the option of not being groped on their daily commute to the noble effort of enduring it in the name of 'equality'.

alternatively, men could stop harassing and assaulting women on public transport, but that's not under women's control.

[MarxArchist]

um, did i say that? i'm talking about the tendency of men to take up a lot of space in public when women have been socialized not to do this. women are also socialized not to ask people to move. women are socialized to make way for people. this is a double standard that comes out of a sexist culture that values men and their comfort more than women. i am not personally attacking your genitals and the space you prefer to afford them, so chillax.

Most of us are twice your size (intimidating I know) and we have scrotums. We take up more space. I'm not going to adjust the way I sit on a train with plenty of seating because of bunk theory that says the way I sit is the source of rape culture and violence against women. I people watch on BART every day and what I witness is common courtesy on a daily basis. Men and women both need room when the train is packed. People standing, no empty seats....men "bunch up" and make room for other men and for women. What I can't remember ever seeing is some guy sitting spread eagle basically saying fuck you to everyone around him, men and women both. Where are you from? NY? My experience living in the Bay Area all my life has been, during rush hour on the train, everyone is in the shitstorm together and we all bunch in like sardines. What I have noticed is during large events groups of drunk assholes do indeed exert male dominance all over the trains but average day to day rush hour traffic is by far not the world being painted in that blog. At least in the Bay Area.


also: sometimes yeah people do react that way, especially if you're talking about men in groups who are under the impression the best way to assert their masculinity is to be an asshole.
Yes I know, there are assholes in the world and patriarchy exists and we all need to exercise judgment when it comes to asking things of strangers, especially some men but acting as if train rides are out of control beacons of patriarchal oppression because of men spreading their legs is bunk theory.




women do have to think about getting into potential confrontations with men. women have to make constant calculations in public about what is and is not safe to do, not because doing something unsafe will always result in harm, but because you can never know for sure. that is, in fact, the way i see and experience the world. it's the way most women see and experience the world. it's just part of the fabric of everyday life.
As do men, how many times do you think I've been in shifty situations due to macho tough guy posturing? I'm aware this world exists (the patriarchy and it's affects) but as I said when I'm on BART in rush hour traffic it hasn't been my experience that women are fragile damsels in distress with men spreading eagle everywhere. What I witness during rush hour traffic is common courtesy, to a surprising level even. All too many men even get up and stand and give women their seats which I don't agree with.


it's kind of fascinating the cries of martyrdom that emanate from men when anyone suggests they look into their own behaviour. the point here is, it's just a matter of comfort and being tired for you. for many women it is something else. why is that so threatening to you?

This isn't a cry of martyrdom it's a reality check.


ETA: i'm unsure what you're trying to imply with the articles you linked. the first two seem to be explaining this issue better than i am, and as for the last i am in favor of women-only train cars. if you think having women-only spaces to address a very real problem of harassment on public transport is somehow demeaning because of its connotations, i suggest as a materialist that many women would prefer the option of not being groped on their daily commute to the noble effort of enduring it in the name of 'equality'.

alternatively, men could stop harassing and assaulting women on public transport, but that's not under women's control.I posted the first two links to show that the original blog posted isn't an isolated opinion but part of what must be a new up and coming bunk theory I wasn't aware of. I posted the last link to illustrate if women are surrounded by the source of rape culture (men sitting with legs spread) on trains of course sooner or later "safe spaces" will be advocated I'm not in any way shape or form excusing actual harassment.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

More constructive criticism.
Have you ever seen the film Superman Returns? Your "constructive criticism" in two threads now reminds me of the scene where Lex Luthor gets in Lois Lane's face and screams "WRONG!"


Just more ammo for building an ANTI feminist movement. Great job. Way to go. Keep up the good fight.
That's a liberal argument if I've ever heard one. I can't count how many times liberals have complained about me talking about capitalism and class struggle, which to them makes anyone perceived as "left" look bad.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Most of us are twice your size (intimidating I know) and we have scrotums.
Judging from the photos on that site, Swedish men must have scrotums the size of pumpkins if they have to sit with their legs that wide.

[MarxArchist]

Have you ever seen the film Superman Returns? Your "constructive criticism" in two threads now reminds me of the scene where Lex Luthor gets in Lois Lane's face and screams "WRONG!"

You should've posted a youtube video of that. It would have had more effect :)



That's a liberal argument if I've ever heard one. I can't count how many times liberals have complained about me talking about capitalism and class struggle, which to them makes anyone perceived as "left" look bad.

What's the material basis for the theory that men spreading their legs is the source of rape culture? Oh that's right, it's pure mystical idealism. Did you guys consult the bones to come up with that one? We communists have an actual materialist critique of capitalism based in reality. The only bourgeosis libeal nonsense in this thread is the article in the OP.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You should've posted a youtube video of that. It would have had more effect :)
tRVUOGUmxJI


What's the material basis for the theory that men spreading their legs is the source of rape culture? Oh that's right, it's pure mystical idealism. Did you guys consult the bones to come up with that one? We communists have an actual materialist critique of capitalism based in reality. The only bourgeosis libeal nonsense in this thread is the article in the OP.
I believe I outlined where I was in agreement with her, but that I'm not convinced by the entirety of the argument she makes as a bourgeois feminist.

[roy]

Yes I know, there are assholes in the world and patriarchy exists and we all need to exercise judgment when it comes to asking things of strangers, especially some men but acting as if train rides are out of control beacons of patriarchal oppression because of men spreading their legs is bunk theory.

no one said anything about 'out of control beacons of patriarchal oppression' and it's pretty rude to act as though they did, but obviously experiences such as there that women cite as having aboard public transport are demonstrative of a societal power structure that favours men.


As do men, how many times do you think I've been in shifty situations due to macho tough guy posturing? I'm aware this world exists (the patriarchy and it's affects) but as I said when I'm on BART in rush hour traffic it hasn't been my experience that women are fragile damsels in distress with men spreading eagle everywhere. What I witness during rush hour traffic is common courtesy, to a surprising level even. All too many men even get up and stand and give women their seats which I don't agree with.

just because you witness one thing doesn't mean the other thing doesn't happen and isn't common.

[black magick hustla]

um, but my balls are the size of pumpkins.....

[black magick hustla]

dude entitlement is pretty much a thing, including space. but i will continue slouching anyway :^(

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think Chomsky explains away quite well why having these grand metanarratives in the social sciences is a bit silly and self defeating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE&NR=1&feature=endscreen

[slum]

What's the material basis for the theory that men spreading their legs is the source of rape culture?

literally no one here has said they agreed with that statement.

by focusing on one stupid line from that article you have managed to avoid all useful discussion about whether or not the way men behave in public space reflects an unexamined privilege. why are you even in this subforum if you're not interested in that? your noble efforts to 'save' feminism from itself aren't needed. we can do without your help.


As do men, how many times do you think I've been in shifty situations due to macho tough guy posturing?

in a discussion about feminism? i literally could not care less. again, if you think the atmosphere of public spaces is equally threatening towards men as it is towards women, i don't really understand what you're doing in the 'women's struggle' section.

as to your impressions of public transit, i am sure they are legitimate for you. what i am saying is that many women have a different experience, or interpret those experiences in different ways because they live with sexism. this does not strike me as a terribly difficult idea to grasp, and yet...

[MarxArchist]

literally no one here has said they agreed with that statement.

by focusing on one stupid line from that article you have managed to avoid all useful discussion about whether or not the way men behave in public space reflects an unexamined privilege. why are you even in this subforum if you're not interested in that? your noble efforts to 'save' feminism from itself aren't needed. we can do without your help.

I was hoping people would stop posting these silly scenarios. It's like a bug light for me attracting criticism. I understand in some cases men taking up space in a domineering fashion is a subtle expression of patriarchy but sitting with your legs marginally spread as seen in her 'evidence' isn't a valid example. She's exaggerating the issue is my point.




in a discussion about feminism? i literally could not care less. again, if you think the atmosphere of public spaces is equally threatening towards men as it is towards women, i don't really understand what you're doing in the 'women's struggle' section.

No, within actual society. I was agreeing with you that the patriarchy and it's affects exist and that I understand many women have valid reason to be sketched out around certain men. Being afraid to ask a person to scoot over on a train in rush hour traffic shouldn't be a universal/blanket fear and if you experience the world in that way I feel for you but the women I know are more assertive. I ride the BART train every day and what I don't see are a bunch of women looming around shivering like chihuahua's. Discretion is something men also have to employ to avoid harsh conflict (as a result of patriarchy) but to act as if every man on the train during rush hour traffic is some macho chest thumping sexist who would verbally or violently attack you for asking him to scoot is off base and In my experience during rush hour traffic on BART people, men and women, rarely even have to ask people to scoot. It's common courtesy when A person notices another person wanting to sit down. Some guy sitting with his female partner that he knows pushing her off to the side, taking up space and giving her a corner of the seat would probably be more common and yes that's a problem and I'm not saying it doesn't happen between strangers but yes, women do it too in the rare event that it happens. When women do it it's not an expression of patriarchy though right? Anyhow, this isnt some epidemic in my experience as I said people on BART, men and women, have common courtesy. Those men and women who don't are simply rude.


Don't women have the guts to confront men and tell them to move over, please?
I don't think women and girls can cope with that. They choose not to take on that battle. Take on that battle? Sure, in rare cases there are indeed angry looking domineering tough guy's and or drunk guys that most people would ask nothing of on a crowded train but to paint the picture that women can't take on the "battle" of asking average joe to scoot, well- this isnt the world I see women living in but if your experience is to live in constant fear of men I can't devalue your experience. No wonder you advocate segregated trains. What else do you think should be segregated? Are you a separatist by any chance (if it was the other poster condoning segregation excuse me).




as to your impressions of public transit, i am sure they are legitimate for you. what i am saying is that many women have a different experience, or interpret those experiences in different ways because they live with sexism. this does not strike me as a terribly difficult idea to grasp, and yet...

No I understand some women live in constant fear and I understand some women have a material basis for such fear in the fucked up behavior of men but this spread legs theory is pure mystical idealism with no material basis. Lets focus on the fucked up behavior of men shall we? Sure taking up space in a domineering fashion is an expression of patriarchy but what I see in the photo "evidence" is nothing of the sort. What I see everyday on BART is nothing of the sort. I've actually made cringing eye contact with men and because our legs were pressed so tight together. A sort of recognition that, wow, this is exreemly uncomfortable marginally painful.

At times, especially in Sweden, some people have been known for generating theory which has no material basis. One example is the affect Eva Lundgren had on women's shelters in Sweden. They became convinced Sweeden was overrun with an underground Satanic sex cult that would sacrifice women and subsequently all manner of shifty practice sprung up from that theory. I post this as an example of idealism gone wild but I'm sure it will be taken out of context:

yn3cHsHnUPM

I consider men spreading their legs on trains as being the source of violence against women and rape culture to be in the same vein. All she did was take the theory and brought it to it's conclusion. If it's an expression of patriarchal dominance then by default patriarchal dominence is indeed teh source of rape culture and violence against women.

[MarxArchist]

I think Chomsky explains away quite well why having these grand metanarratives in the social sciences is a bit silly and self defeating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE&NR=1&feature=endscreen

That guy is a Men's Rights "Activist" (Not Chomsky but the youtube page owner). His videos on feminism are garbage.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

That guy is a Men's Rights "Activist" (Not Chomsky but the youtube page owner). His videos on feminism are garbage.I know, rather unfortunate. I remember how good his videos were when he first started (one of the guys who really opened my eyes to libertarian socialism), bashing Stalinists and AnCaps left and right, unfortunately he devolved from making fantastic videos on wage slavery to complaining about women having the upper hand in the dating scene, to making some of the most cringworthy videos I have ever seen on PUA.

[Sidagma]

holy shit the manpain damage control in this thread is like a case study on male privilege

like do you realize that the effects of patriarchy include bullying and abusing women from an extremely young age to constantly apologize for taking up any space whatsoever

i know women who skip meals for five years or more to ensure that they take up as little space in society as possible. if we can pull that off y'all can adjust around your junk. it's not an issue of "well golly gee she should just ask" because

1) talking to people in oppressor groups is not fun because they routinely do skullfuckingly oppressive things (like the shit in this thread) and we're not all in mindsets where we want to deal with that 24/7

2) it probably wouldn't do much because when a man says "no" to something it's the end of the discussion. boundaries in society are massively unequally negotiated and when a woman does ask a man to do something it's unusual and she's stepping out of line and it's an act of wonderful generosity if the dude decides not to be a total d-bag about it.

3) women are trained to accommodate men and their need for space without being explicitly asked. it's not unfair to ask the same thing of men. getting on the bus isn't the time for a long discussion about consent and boundaries. it's the time to mind your own fucking business and get on the fucking bus

4) the need women have to not take up space in society has detrimental effects on womens' self-esteem to the point that a LOT of women will actually feel bad and selfish for just asking. which of course is framed as our problem for having such shitty self-esteem when it's patriarchal society that made us this way

like holy shit this thread is painful to read.

ps oakland is the most overtly patriarchal place i've ever lived and if you think something being common knowledge in the bay area makes it not sexist as all fuck then you are wrong.

[MarxArchist]

. but i will continue slouching anyway :^(
Then you're sexist yes?

[human strike]

Sometimes I'm just really not in the mood for somebody to sit next to me on the bus so I'll sit like that if there are other seats available. Yeah, I guess I'm exploiting privilege and it's interesting to examine the power in body language, but I'm also exploiting having long legs so meh.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Po-mo obscurantism galore!

[homegrown terror]

i am very pro-feminist and pro-equality, but i have to call bullshit on this one. in a world with so many FAR more pressing problems, why is this even a talking point?

something else to consider: does anyone else think it's highly likely she'd stop shouting "oppression!" and start shouting "patronisation!" if such a guy were to move over or offer her his seat?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

why is this even a talking point?

Because first world white people problems and boredom.

[MarxArchist]

holy shit the manpain damage control in this thread is like a case study on male privilege

like do you realize that the effects of patriarchy include bullying and abusing women from an extremely young age to constantly apologize for taking up any space whatsoever

Elaborate on that please. Perhaps with historical and current examples showing that little girls and women are bullied to take up no space whatsoever and that this is a common experience leading to abject submission where women fear taking up space. Consider it an exercise in historical materialism applied to feminism.


i know women who skip meals for five years or more to ensure that they take up as little space in society as possible.

That started with the psychological switch in capitalism around the time Edward Bernays started using Freud's theories to sell products in a sexualized manner. Every women must be thin to be beautiful. Every product based on human sexual insecurities. Marketing based on the same concept and even to manufacture insecurities. Very profitable that turned out to be.


1) talking to people in oppressor groups is not fun because they routinely do skullfuckingly oppressive things (like the shit in this thread) and we're not all in mindsets where we want to deal with that 24/7

Please give an example of, I'm assuming me, doing skullfucking oppressive things. Challenging certain/specific feminist theory/practice is oppressive? If only Stalinists had that to rely on and no I'm not comparing feminism to Stalinism.






2) it probably wouldn't do much because when a man says "no" to something it's the end of the discussion. boundaries in society are massively unequally negotiated and when a woman does ask a man to do something it's unusual and she's stepping out of line and it's an act of wonderful generosity if the dude decides not to be a total d-bag about it.
Asking a man to scoot probably wouldn't do much? So yes indeed you see men on trains as dominating violent sexists who would just tell you to fuck off if asked to scoot over a tad. I'm sorry you see the world that way. Do men like that exist? Yes. The norm? No.


3) women are trained to accommodate men and their need for space without being explicitly asked.
People who have common sense move over when a person see's the seat next to them is the only available seat. Please provide ample evidence that men in general would not make room for a woman who needed to sit down on a crowded train - In the same way Marx provided evidence that capitalism is exploitative. Opinions don't hold up to intellectual scrutiny or criticism and labeling any and all criticism or intellectual scrutiny as oppressive is a cop out. Is there no debate? No questioning specific feminist theory/practice? In many cases yes which is why we see so much idealism within the broader tradition. Idealism such as the article in the OP pushing 'evidence' of her theory which is beyond questionable.



it's not unfair to ask the same thing of men. getting on the bus isn't the time for a long discussion about consent and boundaries. it's the time to mind your own fucking business and get on the fucking bus

Which most people do. And most people don't hog space when there is no space available for other people but some people do, men and women. Do men exist who would sprawl out in a basically "fuck you" to everyone on board? Yes. Is it the norm? No. Do men also take issue with such men? Yes. Are there women who do the same? Yes. I've seen women here in Oakland, on the bus, straight out violate peoples space, assault other passengers etc. I've seen men shoot and stab people on the bus. This is a poor area where I live and for some reason many poor people in Oakland have, lets say, a lack of manners. Go to the suburbs and these things don't happen as is the case on BART during rush hour. Buses in Oakland are a whole other beast. Nothing is blanket or universal. Every situation has it's own set of material forces.


4) the need women have to not take up space in society has detrimental effects on womens' self-esteem to the point that a LOT of women will actually feel bad and selfish for just asking. which of course is framed as our problem for having such shitty self-esteem when it's patriarchal society that made us this way

Elaborate on that please. Perhaps with historical and current examples showing that little girls and women are bullied to take up no space whatsoever and that this is a common experience leading to abject submission where women fear taking up space. Consider it an exercise in historical materialism applied to feminism.




ps oakland is the most overtly patriarchal place i've ever lived and if you think something being common knowledge in the bay area makes it not sexist as all fuck then you are wrong.
Oh I agree but the thing is I was talking about BART during rush hour not Oakland AC Transit . I'm going to be blunt here and give you the reason why Oakland (and not BART during rush hour traffic) is one of the most patriarchal places I've also experienced and it's because young black males have a major problem with the current culture they live in and perpetuate. It's patriarchy on steroids. Pimping, rapping about women having no value, being whores and fresh meat to have sex with and discard like used toilet paper. That's another thread though isn't it? We're talking about trains during rush hour traffic yes? Trains during a time where there is no other place to sit but next to some man who is spreading eagle

[MarxArchist]

i am very pro-feminist and pro-equality, but i have to call bullshit on this one. in a world with so many FAR more pressing problems, why is this even a talking point?

something else to consider: does anyone else think it's highly likely she'd stop shouting "oppression!" and start shouting "patronisation!" if such a guy were to move over or offer her his seat?
But we can't critisize this theory or we're being skullfuckingly oppressive. It's stuff like this that creates such a backlash to feminism and I do indeed support most feminist theory/practice and total womans liberation. Sifting through it is the problem non supporters of feminism have. They end up just saying "fuck feminism", men and women both.

[Slippers]

I feel like things like this make feminism and woman's liberation seem silly to those not in the know even if there is some amount of truth to them. I just can't imagine how guys sit on public transit being a really pressing issue though, or that it's really all that related to feminism.

In any case I'm sure the media will take things like this up and try to spin it as a "crazy, unreasonable feminists on a rampage!!" kind of story.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But we can't critisize this theory or we're being skullfuckingly oppressive. It's stuff like this that creates such a backlash to feminism and I do indeed support most feminist theory/practice and total womans liberation. Sifting through it is the problem non supporters of feminism have. They end up just saying "fuck feminism", men and women both.

I think you're reacting pretty harshly for something you just rejected as being essentially pointless. Skullfuckingly... I have long since learned to take anything written by foreigners about feminism in Sweden with a heavy grain of salt as it tends to be... less than reliable, and sometimes, utterly absurd and preposterous (like the article in the OP and that "Gender War" thing you posted there, lawl)

Why not go back to savethemales (WE'RE ALL BEING MADE EFFEMINTE BY THE STUFF THEY PUT IN OUR WATER MAAN! THERE'S NO TRUE MEN AROUND ANY MORE WHO SWEAT AND PUT THEIR WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE AND BRING UP CHILDREN WITH GOOD MALE RAW MODELZ!!!) or something. You seem more concerned with this "giving a bad image" than having a discussion about its points - disagreeable or not.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think you're reacting pretty harshly for something you just rejected as being essentially pointless

It's our ideology, it's are job to take an interest in something that turns it on its head.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But we can't critisize this theory or we're being skullfuckingly oppressive.
No one has said that. You keep tossing that strawman around.


They end up just saying "fuck feminism", men and women both.
But that's the default position in a male dominated society. Frankly, anyone who uses something like this as a reason to be anti-feminist is already anti-feminist.

[MarxArchist]

No one has said that. You keep tossing that strawman around.

From page 1 of this thread




http://www.revleft.com/vb/customavatars/avatar78614_2.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=78614) Sidagma (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=78614) talking to people in oppressor groups is not fun because they routinely do skullfuckingly oppressive things (like the shit in this thread) and we're not all in mindsets where we want to deal with that 24/7
But that's the default position in a male dominated society. Frankly, anyone who uses something like this as a reason to be anti-feminist is already anti-feminist.

EDIT, and the post was thanked how many times?


A lot of women are, lets say, turned off by some of the rather less scientific aspects of feminism. Are they mysogonists? Internalizing the patriarchy? A lot of men who would otherwise admit to and or support the need for a viable feminist movement also voice such sentiments. At the same time yes of course there are boundless meatheads who no matter what would harp in with anti-feminist malarkey. A lot of women actually consider themselves X feminists because of theory that has no material basis in reality. It's not a linear phenomenon. Nothing really is in life.

[The Jay]

But that's the default position in a male dominated society. Frankly, anyone who uses something like this as a reason to be anti-feminist is already anti-feminist.

If you had bothered to actually read what was clearly there you would know that the contention is not partiarchy. Instead the issue is whether or not taking up space on a train is promoting rape-culture.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

A lot of women are, lets say, turned off by some of the rather less scientific aspects of feminism.I think this is a major area towards which we should be directing are efforts to. This surreal obscurantitism and rhetorical flourishes, while they look clever on paper, lead us nowhere when fighting for equality between the sexes.

[MarxArchist]

I have long since learned to take anything written by foreigners about feminism in Sweden with a heavy grain of salt as it tends to be... less than reliable, and sometimes, utterly absurd and preposterous (like the article in the OP and that "Gender War" thing you posted there, lawl)

Yes you're correct and it happens in America as well but I don't think I'm being harsh or disrespectful I'm simply saying things some feminists won't agree with AND I'm a man so it makes things complicated. I'm in womans space throwing around my unwanted opinion is the way it will be painted. My posts in this thread actually have been painted as a great example of patriarchal male dominance. Like I said, think if Slalinists enjoyed that amount of unaccountability when it comes to theory. We'd all be advocating socialism in one country. EDIT: I do understand the dynamics when sometimes men shut women out, shout them down, invalidate their opinion, as in, dominate a space etc but theory shouldn't be based in opinions and should be open for debate and discussion.


Why not go back to savethemales (WE'RE ALL BEING MADE EFFEMINTE BY THE STUFF THEY PUT IN OUR WATER MAAN! THERE'S NO TRUE MEN AROUND ANY MORE WHO SWEAT AND PUT THEIR WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE AND BRING UP CHILDREN WITH GOOD MALE RAW MODELZ!!!) or something. You seem more concerned with this "giving a bad image" than having a discussion about its points - disagreeable or not.
I am having a discussion concerning theory/practice I don't agree with. Part of why I don't agree with it is because in my view certian theory does indeed manufacture non supporters of feminism and secondly because such theory also has the potential to affect the world we live in, as, as you said, "the sometimes utterly absurd and preposterous theory" in Sweden affects Swedish society. But it's all in the name of woman's liberation so we should just ignore it?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you had bothered to actually read what was clearly there you would know that the contention is not partiarchy. Instead the issue is whether or not taking up space on a train is promoting rape-culture.
I'm a woman, so I'm glad there are men to explain things to me. :rolleyes:

[The Jay]

I'm a woman, so I'm glad there are men to explain things to me. :rolleyes:

It isn't because you are a woman, which I didn't even know, it is because you are being an idiot. You also just implied that I was being sexist man, though you do not know my sex now do you. I take issue with that insult so keep straw-manning as you were. I was just trying to clear things up.

[MarxArchist]

Debate doesn't have to be hostile or foster name calling - which would be a sort of expression of patriarchy, although, I've been called skulfuckinly sexist ;) . We don't have to start a mud slinging war.

[The Jay]

Debate doesn't have to be hostile or foster name calling - which would be a sort of expression of patriarchy, although, I've been called skulfuckinly sexist ;) . We don't have to start a mud slinging war.

I would prefer to avoid that as well, but I will not take pseudo-libel of my supposed purporting of partiarchy lightly.

[MarxArchist]

Male dominance on BART during a large event.


MarxArchist- What I have noticed is during large events groups of drunk assholes do indeed exert male dominance all over the trains but average day to day rush hour traffic is by far not the world being painted in that blog. At least in the Bay Area.

aTpOcHxZMdA

The average day on BART rush hour. What you see in the video is literally what I experience to various degrees of full capacity.


MarxArchist- I'm aware this world exists (the patriarchy and it's affects) but as I said when I'm on BART in rush hour traffic it hasn't been my experience that women are fragile damsels in distress with men spreading eagle everywhere. What I witness during rush hour traffic is common courtesy, to a surprising level even. All too many men even get up and stand and give women their seats which I don't agree with.



tjmn_R3RrPw

[MarxArchist]

ETA: i'm unsure what you're trying to imply with the articles you linked. the last (article) i am in favor of women-only train cars. if you think having women-only spaces to address a very real problem of harassment on public transport is somehow demeaning because of its connotations, i suggest as a materialist that many women would prefer the option of not being groped on their daily commute to the noble effort of enduring it in the name of 'equality'.

alternatively, men could stop harassing and assaulting women on public transport, but that's not under women's control.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2007/aug/03/healthandwellbeing.gender


In the article above which you agreed with she sites Japan as a nation that has women only train cars and uses Japan in combination with somewhat misleading statistics to argue for segregated train cars in America. This is the system in Japan before gender segregation:


b0A9-oUoMug

[MarxArchist]

That is literally rape!
Please delete.

[goalkeeper]

I have long since learned to take anything written by foreigners about feminism in Sweden with a heavy grain of salt as it tends to be... less than reliable, and sometimes, utterly absurd and preposterous (like the article in the OP and that "Gender War" thing you posted there, lawl)
.

The author of the article in the OP, Nathalie Rothschild, is Swedish.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It isn't because you are a woman, which I didn't even know, it is because you are being an idiot.
You implied I was unable to understand the thread so far, and now you've directly called me an idiot.

I also find it difficult to believe you could see someone's name is Danielle and not even have the slightest clue that you were talking to a woman.


You also just implied that I was being sexist man, though you do not know my sex now do you.
Actually, your gender is listed in your profile as male.


I take issue with that insult so keep straw-manning as you were. I was just trying to clear things up.
It came across as classic man-splaining, whether that was your intent or not.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It's clear that there are a lot of issues with the establishment of capitalist culture that develops certain behaviours in public spaces from all genders; the actions of men in public spaces being one of them. However, it's also clear to me that making this particular case a focal point is simply not that productive to the cause of feminism. Doesn't mean it's not an important issue, simply that, in my opinion, it's a losing strategy to single this out from the myriad of other example of patriarchal culture in action.

[The Jay]

You implied I was unable to understand the thread so far, and now you've directly called me an idiot.

If you did understand the point of the other users then you were intentionally misrepresenting what they were saying, which is arguably worse. I did call you an idiot for implying that I addressed a disagreement due to you being a woman and that was in fact stupid and insulting.


I also find it difficult to believe you could see someone's name is Danielle and not even have the slightest clue that you were talking to a woman.

Is it impossible for a male to take a 'feminine' name?


Actually, your gender is listed in your profile as male.

I doubt that you checked and if you did then it is telling since you had to check to see if I was a male and addressed that instead of my words.


It came across as classic man-splaining, whether that was your intent or not.

I gave a gender neutral criticism and you call it 'man-splaining'. I can really feel the weight of your argument. :rolleyes:

[homegrown terror]

aaand the battle of "you're too sensitive" vs. "you're too insensitive" begins again....

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is it impossible for a male to take a 'feminine' name?
Oh, right, you thought a feminist named Danielle talking about women's issues was more likely a man. :rolleyes:


I doubt that you checked and if you did then it is telling since you had to check to see if I was a male and addressed that instead of my words.
You're coming close to calling a feminist a man hater, aren't you?


I gave a gender neutral criticism and you call it 'man-splaining'. I can really feel the weight of your argument. :rolleyes:
I think you knew full well that Danielles tend to be women, so you're a liar and a man-splaining sexist.

[The Jay]

Oh, right, you thought a feminist named Danielle talking about women's issues was more likely a man. :rolleyes:

I actually didn't care what your name was. I don't see why I should.


You're coming close to calling a feminist a man hater, aren't you?

Prove it. You can't unless you resort to lies or logical fallacies.


I think you knew full well that Danielles tend to be women, so you're a liar and a man-splaining sexist.

I think that this tells it all. You couldn't talk civilly so you resorted to hidden accusations, now you say the same things except blatantly.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Triceramarx, this is Women's Struggle, and all you have to contribute is some unexamined privilege.

[The Jay]

Triceramarx, this is Women's Struggle, and all you have to contribute is some unexamined privilege.

Prove it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Prove it.
A man demanding a woman do something. Aw, aren't you sweet.

[Rugged Collectivist]

A man demanding a woman do something. Aw, aren't you sweet.

So you think it's acceptable to make pretty serious accusations against someone and then scold them for requesting evidence?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So you think it's acceptable to make pretty serious accusations against someone and then scold them for requesting evidence?
Anyone is capable of reading what he wrote in this thread, but I won't be surprised if some male comrades simply don't get it.

[bcbm]

I don't think I'm being harsh or disrespectful


Because you're helpless. Right? "Excuse me sir/buddy/guy can you please make room? Thanks". That wasn't so hard now was it? Are you implying men would say "Fuck you go sit somewhere else"? Is this the way you really see or experience the world?

Most of us are twice your size (intimidating I know)

acting as if train rides are out of control beacons of patriarchal oppression because of men spreading their legs is bunk theory.

Did you guys consult the bones to come up with that one?

to act as if every man on the train during rush hour traffic is some macho chest thumping sexist who would verbally or violently attack you for asking him to scoot is off base



I'm simply saying things some feminists won't agree with AND I'm a man so it makes things complicated.

i think the way you say things might be part of the problem

[bcbm]

since i posted in the convo i can't do this in a formal capacity, but lets try to keep it respectful and on topic here or some mods are gonna get involved

[black magick hustla]

i don't know why dudes are making a big deal about this. it essentially boils down to be a bit considerate when public transportation is crowded. i kinda joked that i slouch cuz' generally when i see the train is full i tighten my legs a little bit. i imagine there is nothing wrong with slouching if there are a lot of empty spaces.

i mean, i guess the people behind that blog are exaggerating a bit cuz' i think they cuss out anyone who slouches regardless if the train is desert. but, i do think that men willing to take up a lot of space comfortably without even giving it an iota of thought is symptomatic of some fucked gender dynamics. although, i do think the whole "check your priviliege" deal is very tumblr politicky...

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems like this is a symptom of more general things:
1) Women not feeling comfortable or welcomed in some public spaces due to the acceptance of harassment.
2) A social expectation that women should accomodate themselves and not be "demanding" - especially when it comes to men.
3) Crowded commutes.

So really I think the sorts of fights or struggle that could allieviate this issue would not involve this issue directly. Probably broader struggles that help create more anti-sexist consiousness and solidarity as well as confidence of women would errode this problem. I think it also probably goes beyond just women feeling unconfortable on public transportation too because in the Bay Area there are always complaints of kids taking up too much room on the trains or people spilling food that renders seats unavailable, etc. So public transportation that was more efficient and pleasant for everyone would also help alliviate this issue and others.

But on a smaller level, articles that draw people's attention to some issues like this can subjectivly help just by making some people more aware and then they might modify their behavior - but this won't solve the issue, but it can't hurt.

[slum]

i don't know why dudes are making a big deal about this. it essentially boils down to be a bit considerate when public transportation is crowded. i kinda joked that i slouch cuz' generally when i see the train is full i tighten my legs a little bit. i imagine there is nothing wrong with slouching if there are a lot of empty spaces.

i mean, i guess the people behind that blog are exaggerating a bit cuz' i think they cuss out anyone who slouches regardless if the train is desert. but, i do think that men willing to take up a lot of space comfortably without even giving it an iota of thought is symptomatic of some fucked gender dynamics. although, i do think the whole "check your priviliege" deal is very tumblr politicky...

this is exactly all i was trying to say.

now that a man has said it maybe certain male comrades might listen up a bit? either way i wash my hands of this trainwreck.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

This whole idea is pretty ridiculous. I don't see how gender is even relevant to people taking up extra space in public transport. Obviously they only post pictures of men doing it, but do you really think women never take any extra space than what they need? (Maybe not by spreading their legs, but in other ways, like putting their purse on the seat next to them for example)
Taking up extra space is not sexist, just inconsiderate, and anyone of any gender can do it.

[Quail]

This whole idea is pretty ridiculous. I don't see how gender is even relevant to people taking up extra space in public transport. Obviously they only post pictures of men doing it, but do you really think women never take any extra space than what they need? (Maybe not by spreading their legs, but in other ways, like putting their purse on the seat next to them for example)
Taking up extra space is not sexist, just inconsiderate, and anyone of any gender can do it.
Have you even read the rest of the thread, where people explain why gender could be relevant? Women are socialised not to take up space, to put other people's needs before their own, to constantly apologise; men are socialised to take up as much space as they damn well please. I don't think this is in itself a big issue, rather a symptom of the wider power structure.

This difference in socialisation (on a slight tangent) is probably the difference that means leftist women pretty much always end up doing tasks such as making tea and taking minutes when nobody else wants to do it.

[MarxArchist]

But on a smaller level, articles that draw people's attention to some issues like this can subjectivly help just by making some people more aware and then they might modify their behavior - but this won't solve the issue, but it can't hurt.
When every single little sociatal issue is placed at the feet of the patriarchy and tied into manufacturing rape culture and violence against women I think it can 'hurt'. It does hurt. The backlash is tremendous. You're from the bay area, what has your experience on BART been? This is one of the largest metropolitan train/transit systems in America. Would you say women are unsafe (of course the potential for being unsafe is EVERYWHERE, I'm speaking to being unsafe to ask a person for room to sit during rush hour) ? Would you say there's a need for segregated BART trains? Would you say men are spread eagle everywhere during rush hour traffic with absolutely no manners when it comes to making space for people to sit down?

[MarxArchist]

um, but my balls are the size of pumpkins.....
Donglegate?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't think this is in itself a big issue, rather a symptom of the wider power structure.
Exactly, but rather than being able to discuss it as a symptom, this thread has been derailed. It's a familiar pattern in the Women's Struggle forum, and it's always some men (I do want to emphasize some, because it's only a minority) who do the derailing.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

When every single little sociatal issue is placed at the feet of the patriarchy and tied into manufacturing rape culture and violence against women I think it can 'hurt'. It does hurt. The backlash is tremendous. You're from the bay area, what has your experience on BART been? This is one of the largest metropolitan train/transit systems in America. Would you say women are unsafe (of course the potential for being unsafe is EVERYWHERE, I'm speaking to being unsafe to ask a person for room to sit during rush hour) ? Would you say there's a need for segregated BART trains? Would you say men are spread eagle everywhere during rush hour traffic with absolutely no manners when it comes to making space for people to sit down?

Gender is a crucial element of our society, so yes there is a pretty good chance that any activity you can think of that can take place in our society happens within it's context. How could the ways an individual acts in public spaces possibly be immune to the effects of discrimination? Privilege doesn't disappear because you live in a congested city with public transit.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

When every single little sociatal issue is placed at the feet of the patriarchy and tied into manufacturing rape culture and violence against women I think it can 'hurt'. It does hurt.
Next you'll tell us that laying so much at the feet of capitalism can and does hurt. Liberals. Meh.

[MarxArchist]

Next you'll tell us that laying so much at the feet of capitalism can and does hurt. Liberals. Meh.



Comparing this picture:

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/image/37883009741READ ME: http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/image/37883009741

to this picture

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/69/lafayette2.gif

In the first picture we see a purse on the seat next to her but in the article the author implies she's STILL being oppressed by the man next to her because she's sitting with her legs closer together. Some advice to the oppressed woman in the picture who's taking up two seats... Take the binder off your lap but first before you leave home put on jeans in lieu of a skirt and sit with your legs spread if you can do so without taking space in the seat next to you.

I'll say/ask this again. We've critiqued capitalism from a materialist perspective. Liberals are largely idealists. What's the materialist basis for the theory that the man in the picture is oppressing the woman sitting next to him? Regarding the second picture- I can give you the materialist basis as to why the capitalist is exploiting the worker on the treadmill. If you can do so with the first picture you will win me to your side of the argument. Or is this theory largely tainted with bourgeois liberal idealism? I think it is.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you can do so with the first picture you will win me to your side of the argument.
I don't believe I've argued that how men sit on trains oppresses women. What I've simply agreed with is that it can be an "invisible and unconscious expression of power in an everyday, public space," which reflects a disparity of power between genders on a wider scale.

Also? Creating strawmen = derailing.

[MarxArchist]

I don't believe I've argued that how men sit on trains oppresses women. What I've simply agreed with is that it can be an "invisible and unconscious expression of power in an everyday, public space," which reflects a disparity of power between genders on a wider scale.

Also? Creating strawmen = derailing.

It's not a straw man you're the one who called me a liberal (huge straw man). My reply and earlier mention of materialism/idealism gets to the root of why we see some bunk feminist theory. There is indeed a materialist basis for the patriarchy and the need for feminism however that doesn't mean all sorts of idealist nonsense isn't derived from it. I'd like you to provide a materialist argument in defense of the article I posted which shows a man with his legs marginally spread sitting next to a woman who has a purse on the seat next to her.

There's no materialist analysis in the article simply the assertion that his taking up some space (one seat) is an expression of power while her taking up space (two seats) is actually an example of submission seeing her legs are closer together. If the entire premise of Marx's critique of capitalism was based on assertions and opinions with no material basis he would have been, lets say, not taken seriously (intellectually or socially).

On a less important side note- I'm alone right now in my chair sitting in front of my computer. There's about a foot long gap between my two knee caps. I'm sitting like this because I'm comfortable doing so. When I put my knees together it squishes my scrotum and is uncomfortable. No one else is in the room. No women. No men. The way I'm sitting is not an expression of power. Why would I sit like this in public?

[Let's Get Free]

Unfortunately, I think too many feminists rely too little on materialist analysis and too much on appeal to emotion, and this article is just another instance of that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd like you to provide a materialist argument in defense of the article I posted which shows a man with his legs marginally spread sitting next to a woman who has a purse on the seat next to her.
You know what my argument is. I've posted it twice. You're asking me to defend something I didn't argue in the first place.

But do you really need a materialist argument that power dynamics reflect social ideology? Really?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Unfortunately, I think too many feminists rely too little on materialist analysis and too much on appeal to emotion, and this article is just another instance of that.
That's because women are emotional creatures compared to logical men, right? :rolleyes:

[MarxArchist]

You know what my argument is. I've posted it twice. You're asking me to defend something I didn't argue in the first place.

But do you really need a materialist argument that power dynamics reflect social ideology? Really?
I'll say/ask this again. We've critiqued capitalism from a materialist perspective. Liberals are largely idealists. What's the materialist basis for the theory that the man in the picture is oppressing the woman sitting next to him? Regarding the second picture- I can give you the materialist basis as to why the capitalist is exploiting the worker on the treadmill. If you can do so with the first picture you will win me to your side of the argument. Or is this theory largely tainted with bourgeois liberal idealism? I think it is.

[MarxArchist]

Unfortunately, I think too many feminists rely too little on materialist analysis and too much on appeal to emotion, and this article is just another instance of that.

I wouldn't say emotion but ideas based in opinion with no material basis. If a person was to say "hey, capitalism is bad!" and offered no materialist analysis/reason why- that would indeed be an opinion based in 'emotion' or their subjective experience with capitalism EDIT- A christian could argue against capitalism by pointing to the bible and the teachings of Jesus. Would this idealist argument against capitalism hold any weight? It wouldn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny. Is liberation theology to be the basis of an economic/social revolution?

Bringing up 'emotion' in a discussion about feminism is going to open some old wounds though. I'd say problems arise when people base theories in subjective opinion with no material basis. This is basic idealism. If the patriarchy has trained men to sit with their legs open give a history of the situation as Marx did with historical materialism in order to show how primitive capital accumulated. Do so specifically to prove men sitting on a train with their legs spread marginally open is an expression of dominance.

Likewise we can look at some of the basic functions within the capitalist system (such as alienation) from a materialist basis . Using the same approach feminists should explain the inner workings of the patriarchy. In this case have they/we done so?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What's the materialist basis for the theory that the man in the picture is oppressing the woman sitting next to him?
Why do you keep demanding that I defend an argument I didn't make? :confused:

[MarxArchist]

Why do you keep demanding that I defend an argument I didn't make? :confused:
Read the bold part. Or don't. I'm not sure I can say much else on the topic.


I wouldn't say emotion but ideas based in opinion with no material basis. If a person was to say "hey, capitalism is bad!" and offered no materialist analysis/reason why- that would indeed be an opinion based in 'emotion' or their subjective experience with capitalism. Bringing up 'emotion' in a discussion about feminism is going to open some old wounds though. I'd say problems arise when people base theories in subjective opinion with no material basis. This is basic idealism. If the patriarchy has trained men to sit with their legs open give a history of the situation as Marx did with historical materialism in order to show how primitive capital accumulated. Do so specifically to prove men sitting on a train with their legs spread marginally open is an expression of dominance.

Likewise we can look at some of the basic functions within the capitalist system (such as alienation) from a materialist basis . Using the same approach feminists should explain the inner workings of the patriarchy. In this case have they/we done so?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not sure I can say much else on the topic.
That's a relief.

You've moved the goalposts, though. First, you demanded "what's the materialist basis for the theory that the man in the picture is oppressing the woman sitting next to him?" and now it's "prove men sitting on a train with their legs spread marginally open is an expression of dominance."

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I wouldn't say emotion but ideas based in opinion with no material basis. If a person was to say "hey, capitalism is bad!" and offered no materialist analysis/reason why- that would indeed be an opinion based in 'emotion' or their subjective experience with capitalism.
You don't need materialism to know when you're being exploited or oppressed. Materialism just explains why and how the system of oppression works.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This whole idea is pretty ridiculous. I don't see how gender is even relevant to people taking up extra space in public transport. Obviously they only post pictures of men doing it, but do you really think women never take any extra space than what they need? (Maybe not by spreading their legs, but in other ways, like putting their purse on the seat next to them for example)
Taking up extra space is not sexist, just inconsiderate, and anyone of any gender can do it.

The thing is, there's a difference between different people being inconsiderate. Just as, to paraphrase, "the law forbids equally rich and poor from sleeping under bridges", patriarchy establishes dual standards for ostensibly identical behaviour between people socialized and/or read as men or women. Further, these two things (patriarchy and class) are intimately bound up - women's role in relation to the reproduction of labour exists in a complicated relationship with the way women inhabit "public" space.
I urge you to even spend a moment thinking critically about your own example - why might a woman want to create physical space on transit? What are the odds that a man taking up a similar amount of space is doing it to avoid being hit on or creeped on by men who've been socialized to feel entitled to women in public spaces? Prolly pretty slim, yo.

[MarxArchist]

You don't need materialism to know when you're being exploited or oppressed. Materialism just explains why and how the system of oppression works.

But if you can't explain why and how (with materialism as the basis)....why and how men sitting on trains with their legs marginally spread is an expression of male dominance then it has no material basis and therefore is idealist theory. Idealism can explain why and how things happen but you see, it wouldn't really be why and how. why do you think science and idealism don't mix?

I could say the moon is giving me headaches. I would still materially have a headache but would you question whether or not the moon was the cause? Show me, with materialism as the basis, that the man in the picture in the article below is consciously or unconsciously displaying patriarchal dominance. Please use materialism as the basis to explain why and how the woman next to him, while taking up two seats, is simply
"being rude" as the author implied. Read the article, dissect it, analyze it, explain it without using an idealist framework. Otherwise it's simply idealist theory with no material basis and won't hold up to intellectual scrutiny and therefore shouldn't be paraded around as an expression of male dominance - such is the case when some people take the patriarchy, which does have a material basis, and start to add all sorts of idealist theories to it. You're avoiding doing so it because you can't do it. It can't be done.

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

That's because women are emotional creatures compared to logical men, right? :rolleyes:

Strawman much? I don't mean to sound rude, but he did not say all women, he said a lot of feminists. I don't agree, but that's clearly not what he said.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/image/37883009741READ ME: http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train



Are they seriously making a big deal about that guy? I get angry when people are impolite on public transport too, but are they fucking kidding me? That's seriously enough to get angry about?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You're avoiding doing so it because you can't do it. It can't be done.
The idea that primates (or mammals as a group) use body language to show dominance/submissiveness is scientifically valid and simply not debatable.

As a materialist, the concept that an ideological system based on dominance could manifest itself in body language shouldn't be so hard to understand.

White people walking down the street with heads up while black people were expected to show deference, keep their eyes lowered, and move out of the way? That expressed the material reality of white dominance.

Bosses showing dominant body language while workers had to stand with caps in hand, looking deferential? That expressed the material reality of ruling class dominance.

Men using body language, even unconsciously, that reflects the material reality of a male dominated society? It's telling that you see that as a huge leap of logic not grounded in materialism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's seriously enough to get angry about?
Odd, I don't see any anger in the words on that blog post. Even if you disagree with what's being said, how do you interpret it as angry?

[slum]

women's role in relation to the reproduction of labour exists in a complicated relationship with the way women inhabit "public" space.

i feel like the origin of the family, private property, and the state should be required reading for anyone who uses the words 'idealist' and 'feminism' in the same sentence.

alternatively, any number of books about male/female inside/outside political/domestic dichotomies in any given class society

we aren't pulling this out of our asses, here

[Rafiq]

okay, but as a materialist you must recognize that this "repressive body language" will not be done away with via lifestylism or this missionary moralism but through the destruction of social relations which sustain patriarchy. when you are not imposing yourself on others (harrassment, and so on) then this type of personal criticism is pointless. that's the jewel of bourgeois feminism: they are desperatly attempting to do away with *all* forms of sexism within the constraints of a mode of production which necessiates it. this is why, to most, they come off as obscene and unreasonable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Strawman much? I don't mean to sound rude, but he did not say all women, he said a lot of feminists. I don't agree, but that's clearly not what he said.
The problem is that by saying "a lot of feminists are emotional," it's playing on the sexist trope that women in general are emotional and incapable of using reason. So, no, it's not a strawman to challenge someone using that trope in the Women's Struggle forum.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

okay, but as a materialist you must recognize that this "repressive body language" will not be done away with via lifestylism or this missionary moralism but through the destruction of social relations which sustain patriarchy. when you are not imposing yourself on others (harrassment, and so on) then this type of personal criticism is pointless. that's the jewel of bourgeois feminism: they are desperatly attempting to do away with *all* forms of sexism within the constraints of a mode of production which necessiates it. this is why, to most, they come off as obscene and unreasonable.
Which is why I said way back at the very beginning of the thread that although I agreed with some of the ideas she was stating, and I specified which ones, I didn't buy into all of her argument because it sounded like bourgeois feminism.

[slum]

this "repressive body language" will not be done away with via lifestylism or this missionary moralism but through the destruction of social relations which sustain patriarchy.

what is the damn persistence in this thread that the feminists here agree with the article in the OP? it was clearly written by a lifestylist. i would think it was a default assumption around here that there cannot be an end to racism or sexism until capitalism is smashed. no one here is being a 'missionary moralist'. the OP asked what marxist feminists thought about the claim that male behaviour in occupying public space is related to a sexist culture.

the marxist part of marxist feminist implies that we think the social relations which sustain capitalism must be destroyed to end patriarchy. that doesn't mean i, or women in general, or perceptive men, don't notice that men behave as if they are entitled to public space whereas women are expected to accommodate others. it doesn't mean we aren't interested in thinking about why that might be. if you're not interested, then cool. but comrades need to stop acting like myself and other posters have advocated some kind of hyper-idealist language-policing bourgeois feminist approach to women's oppression in general. if reactionaries fear the man-hating straw feminist, ya'll are checking under your beds at night for your fever dream of andrea dworkin or some shit





that's the jewel of bourgeois feminism: they are desperatly attempting to do away with *all* forms of sexism within the constraints of a mode of production which necessiates it

they also like to substitute actual equality with some women being integrated into the capitalist class as if economic power for a few is a measure of progress for women as a whole.

which is why i'm a marxist.

[MarxArchist]

The idea that primates (or mammals as a group) use body language to show dominance/submissiveness is scientifically valid and simply not debatable.

As a materialist, the concept that an ideological system based on dominance could manifest itself in body language shouldn't be so hard to understand.


No I realize that, I'm talking about the picture in article you're ignoring and the other pictures used as 'evidence' that men are using body language to dominate by sitting with their legs marginally spread. I'm talking specifically about men sitting on trains with their legs marginally open. Of course men can dominate spaces with body language and of course it's for reasons of intimidation based in fear and the desire to dominate that fear and also the surroundings. Mike, without knowing it, explains the motivation.

yPVlyBDCMIs

What I have a problem with is this specific use of the reality that men can dominate spaces. I've already, in a prior post, said that men can dominate spaces with body language and such the issue here is how are men on trains sitting with their legs marginally spread displaying patriarchal dominance? You're completely ignoring my previous posts.

You know, this one:


Male dominance on BART during a large event.


MarxArchist- What I have noticed is during large events groups of drunk assholes do indeed exert male dominance all over the trains but average day to day rush hour traffic is by far not the world being painted in that blog. At least in the Bay Area. aTpOcHxZMdA

The average day on BART rush hour. What you see in the video is literally what I experience to various degrees of full capacity.


MarxArchist- I'm aware this world exists (the patriarchy and it's affects) but as I said when I'm on BART in rush hour traffic it hasn't been my experience that women are fragile damsels in distress with men spreading eagle everywhere. What I witness during rush hour traffic is common courtesy, to a surprising level even. All too many men even get up and stand and give women their seats which I don't agree with. tjmn_R3RrPw

You can't just say "The idea that primates (or mammals as a group) use body language to show dominance/submissiveness is scientifically valid and simply not debatable" and have that be the materialist analysis explaining why men who sit with their legs marginally open is an expression of patriarchal dominance. Of course mammals and men do this. No, that isn't debatable what is debatable is if sitting on a train with your legs marginally spread is THAT behavior. Why can't you understand this?


Lets take dogs for instance. Of course there's a material basis that the dominant dog walks with the chest high, tail erect and the submissive dog shrinks down, tail between the legs. I know this exists in humans as well. What I'm saying is prove that men sitting with their legs marginally spread apart on trains is this behavior because that's essentially what you're saying. Men = the dominate dog. Women the submissive and the way men are establishing and maintaining this dynamic is by sitting with their legs marginally spread open. Don't you see how absurd that is? And this is suppose to be a universal linear expression of male domination. Sure in some cases a man can use body language to dominate but sitting comfortably isn't one of those cases.

[MarxArchist]

Odd, I don't see any anger in the words on that blog post. Even if you disagree with what's being said, how do you interpret it as angry?

I'll go ahead (in place of that poster) and switch the word anger with indignation. While you're at it give some materialist analysis as to why men sitting with their legs marginally spread is an expression of male patriarchal domination :) Where does it end? Not making eye contact with anyone? Keeping arms at ones side at all times? All men must sit with their legs crossed?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

While you're at it give some materialist analysis as to why men sitting with their legs marginally spread is an expression of male patriarchal domination :)
How about a materialist analysis of a man aggressively haranguing a woman in Woman's Struggle?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

comrades need to stop acting like myself and other posters have advocated some kind of hyper-idealist language-policing bourgeois feminist approach to women's oppression in general.
This! Some comrades are just throwing up one strawman after another, along with sexist tropes about "over-emotional women."

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd like to stress that when men engage in this behavior of dominating the space around them, it's usually unconscious behavior resulting from how they were socialized in a male dominated society.

[MarxArchist]

I'd like to stress that when men engage in this behavior of dominating the space around them, it's usually unconscious behavior resulting from how they were socialized in a male dominated society.
Yes. That's exactly what's going on here:

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

[MarxArchist]

Will any man who supports this: http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com...-30-am-l-train (http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train) please take the proverbial 'debate baton' from Daniel and run with it. Thanks.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

please take the proverbial 'debate baton' from Daniel and run with it. Thanks.
My name is Danielle, so why are you referring to me by a male name?

[MarxArchist]

My name is Danielle, so why are you referring to me by a male name?

Typo or Freudian slip? You make the call ;) My bet is you'll chose the latter. It was a typo. I think and type fast which is why a lot of my posts are edited. I probably would've caught that and edited it. I'd proof read if this were a journal, book or some sort of publication but it's just a forum ya know? You got me to stop posting in the donglegate thread but I think I'm going to hold my ground in this one. I see what you're doing here.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Typo or Freudian slip? You make the call ;) My bet is you'll chose the latter. It was a typo.
So rather than just say it was a typo, you first take a jab at me. And you wonder why I question your motives.


You got me to stop posting in the donglegate thread but I think I'm going to hold my ground in this one. I see what you're doing here.
What am I doing?

[MarxArchist]

'oh hey guys i am going to keep posting this same extreme example over and over again and ask people to 'defend this!' even though everyone in the debate has already explained how they don't agree completely with the op and see some problems with the argument, but have gone out of their way to explain this to some other rude, aggressive posters and have even added a bit more explaining why they think this topic is worth thinking about and trying to move the discussion forward in a positive and productive way, only to be continually agro'd'



haha women, amirite guys? :sneaky:

So then are we in agreement that the OP
(here) http://www.vice.com/read/swedish-feminists-are-so-bored-theyre-telling-men-how-to-sit-on-the-bus


and this link (below) are completely off base?

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

If not then you can go ahead and start defending the theory that men who sit on trains with a marginal distance between their legs are expressing patriarchal dominance either consciously or subconsciously. As I've said it's not off base to say men can dominate space with body language we're specifically talking about men on trains who sit with their legs marginally spread apart. No one can answer my request to show that this has a material basis. If you cant do so don't defend it. This isn't even mentioning the poster who said she thinks we should have segregated trains. Do you think we should have segregated trains?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Will any man who supports this: http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com...-30-am-l-train (http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train) please take the proverbial 'debate baton' from Daniel and run with it. Thanks.
Are you aware this comes off as "will some man shut this woman up"?

[bcbm]

So then are we in agreement that the OP
(here) http://www.vice.com/read/swedish-feminists-are-so-bored-theyre-telling-men-how-to-sit-on-the-bus


and this link (below) are completely off base?

http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/post/37883009741/ladies-do-it-too-on-the-9-30-am-l-train

completely? no.


If not then you can go ahead and start defending the theory that men who sit on trains with a marginal distance between their legs are expressing patriarchal dominance either consciously or subconsciously. As I've said it's not off base to say men can dominate space with body language we're specifically talking about men on trains who sit with their legs marginally spread apart.

'sure it can happen, but this type of thing could never have anything to do with it, especially when i narrow the parameters'


No one can answer my request to show that this has a material basis.

if men can dominate space with body language, surely they can dominate space with body language on trains


This isn't even mentioning the poster who said she thinks we should have segregated trains. Do you think we should have segregated trains?

yeah, you get your own

[MarxArchist]

Are you aware this comes off as "will some man shut this woman up"?


How about a materialist analysis of a man aggressively haranguing a woman in Woman's Struggle?

I was trying to side step the debate monopoly. You know, the one that Stalinists would love to have in order to push the theory of socialism in one country on everyone. You've repeatedly ignored the crux of my argument and have framed it as aggressive lecturing. I don't want to deal with that so I asked a man to take your place or at least a person who will not erect an endless supply of straw men and red herrings while silencing criticism with cries of sexism (which is strongly being implied here). Not the first time or first person you've done it to in this thread. You already know what I requested of you or anyone who thinks men sitting on trains with their legs marginally spread is an expression of patriarchal dominance

I have nothing more to say until that can be shown to have a material basis in reality.

[bcbm]

what is it with you and 'stalinists'


You've repeatedly ignored the crux of my argument

youve got it backwards


I have nothing more to say until that can be shown to have a material basis in reality.

thank god

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're from the bay area, what has your experience on BART been? This is one of the largest metropolitan train/transit systems in America. Would you say women are unsafe (of course the potential for being unsafe is EVERYWHERE, I'm speaking to being unsafe to ask a person for room to sit during rush hour)?

My experience on BART, which I take for my own commute each day, is that people are pushy and are often inconsiderate because they tend to keep the trains short and full in order to have "fiscal recponcibility" (as if public transit was supposed to make money anyway) and everyone is rushing off to jobs and are grumpy. Then again, I also go out of my way to take seats from people who are obviously sitting at the end of the bench to discourage people from taking the space next to them, so I'm pushy in my own passive-agressive way :D


Would you say there's a need for segregated BART trains?No, as far as this specific issue and other issues related to BART I think the best thing would be for them to take a sliver of that San Francisco Dot.Com and competative Yahting money and increase the length and frequency of trians and make it free for commuters.


Would you say men are spread eagle everywhere during rush hour traffic with absolutely no manners when it comes to making space for people to sit down?It's about the same as similar trains I've been on in other cities. When it's empty people are chill but in rush hour or when the trains are packed, people get pushy, selfish and so on. So in a way everyone experiences this, but of course how we experience this is different due to cultural expectations and so on.

Like others have said I think this is sort of a minor or cultural side-effect of sexist expectations in our society. It's like men interrupting women (often connected with so-called mansplaining) - is it a primary effect of sexism in this society? No, it's sort of a soft generalized attitude or expectation which is so common (and not exclusive to women only which makes men think "well I get interrupted too, I can't find a seat on the train too") that only the most groass and outrageous examples are really noticed. What can be done about this sort of phenomena? Not much, as an issue to itself. It's like patronizing attitudes towards blacks back in the day (where white people might think, "Boy" or "Uncle" is a term of familiarity for black people rather than insulting because whites use these terms amongst themselves too, but of course the wider societal implications are totally different) it really will only change when more fundamental things, that allow for numerous such causual diminishing of others, shift through class and anti-sexist struggle.

At my job, I always get people who come into the building (it has nice archetecture) and say things like "it must be so fun to work here" or other things that I find condescending. I want to say, "yeah low-wages and no healthcare is FUN!" but that would probably just get me fired which is the only thing less fun. This won't change by me shaming people, but it might change if general consiousness regarding workers changed through struggles. Then people might come into where I work and see me as real person who works and has a life and problems and aspirations of my own, not an appendage of a corporation like smiling workers in a commercial.


When every single little sociatal issue is placed at the feet of the patriarchy and tied into manufacturing rape culture and violence against women I think it can 'hurt'. It does hurt. The backlash is tremendous.

The biggest potential political problem with focusing on such side-effects is that it can lead to a moralistic approach or a superficial view of oppression - I am far less concerned about "backlash" because anti-feminist or sexist backlash is not due to feminism itself or any issue in particular, it's due to the sexism in this society that seeks to control women's behavior and diminish the value of their labor as part of the control of the whole working class.

Since there is no major struggle against oppression in the US and since the mainstream denies such oppression even exists anymore, people are likely going to point out surface symptoms of racism or sexism because often this is how more generalized attitudes connected to oppression are experienced. For some of these issues there's no real political campaign or action that could really do much since they are more generalized and diffuse, but I think revolutionaries should not diminish claims of "slights" connected with sexism or racism, even if we don't think the specific example is something that can really change on its own. I think it would be much more important to win people who complain of "mansplaining" to our movement and to a deeper analysis of sexism, than to worry about alienating people who may not even believe that sexism exists in our society in the first place.

[black magick hustla]

whats with the manpain and a shitty irrelevant blog. why are you guys so offended that someone takes pictures of people ocupying two seats in rush hour. it reminds me of fedoranerds in the internet that wringe hands at "feminists" or whatever

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Odd, I don't see any anger in the words on that blog post. Even if you disagree with what's being said, how do you interpret it as angry?

You're right, I suppose angry wasn't the right word. I intended it to mean something more along the lines of, "Is this something to be concerned about". I use "get angry" like that occasionally.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

The problem is that by saying "a lot of feminists are emotional," it's playing on the sexist trope that women in general are emotional and incapable of using reason. So, no, it's not a strawman to challenge someone using that trope in the Women's Struggle forum.

Again, I'm not saying I agree, and it can be interpreted that way. However it's still not that he exactly said women are emotional. I think the point he was trying to make was worded poorly, but I don't think it's fair to say it was him saying women are emotional.

[Il Medico]

The OP article seems to me to be liberal nonsense, honestly. Though the discussion of how women are conditioned to take up less space certainly is an interesting way to examine just how pervasive patriarchy is within society. Though the op article feminist was kinda missing the point of it entirely (and not just in the life-stylist crusader way either). It seems to be her point that the problem was men taking up more space than they need as an expression of power and that men need to be conscious of that and stop doing it. How much space a person needs to be comfortable though is hard to quantify and tends to be an individual thing. I'd argue that most men just take up as much room as they need to feel comfortable and that women don't because they are conditioned to be as diminutive (and thus submissive) as possible. So the way men sit is only an expression of power or dominance in so much as it is an expression of lack of oppression. So, I'd think we would want to be trying to draw attention to and correct the conditions that make women feel they have to be smaller and take up less space rather than trying to make men conform to these conditions as well. But that's just what I took away from this, I'm sure one of the warring factions of this thread will let me know if they think I'm way off base.

Oh, also, people who don't scooch over/move their shit to make room for people on crowded public transit are douche muffins regardless of sex.

[hatzel]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant but I actually almost always sit with my legs crossed, so that I look (according to my brother, at least) like a French aristocrat (http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/citizensandkings/the-status-portrait,319,AR.html), and have never felt at all comfortable sitting with my legs splayed out at a 160° angle or whatever it is guys tend to do with them. Interestingly enough, it's been noticed that my dad sits exactly the same way...I can only assume it's some kind of mimetic inheritance thingy, I dunno...

[Luís Henrique]

Reality, as seen from beneath the Equator line (https://www.google.com/search?hl=pt&client=opera&hs=Qyx&channel=suggest&biw=1024&bih=547&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=onibus+lotado+rio+de+janeiro&oq=onibus+lotado+rio+de+janeiro&gs_l=img.3...67941.70350.0.71113.7.7.0.0.0.0.285.1 210.0j5j1.6.0...0.0...1c.1.8.img.4WIYSctBTak#imgrc =_).

Luís Henrique

[melvin]

Women are taught to pay more attention to their posture than men because women are taught to not act slobbish (especially wealthy women) whereas men are not. This is pretty much that in action.

This is also one of those things that, as a male, I don't really criticize or get involved with because women enforce etiquette on eachother much more than males do. and so I mean it's not exactly my place to do anything about it (or be some guy encouraging women to act with less etiquette...)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

whats with the manpain and a shitty irrelevant blog. why are you guys so offended that someone takes pictures of people ocupying two seats in rush hour. it reminds me of fedoranerds in the internet that wringe hands at "feminists" or whatever

Fedoranerds?

[Luís Henrique]

Women are taught to pay more attention to their posture than men because women are taught to not act slobbish (especially wealthy women) whereas men are not. This is pretty much that in action.

They are also encouraged to dress skirts, and socialised to believe showing the inner part of their upper thighs is undesirable.

I am not so sure that women dressing trousers do not sit with their legs spread wide though.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This seems a tad ridiculous. I'd imagine it's more if a man, having been asked to move up, responds in a sexist way, with sexist language etc., that the problem arises.

I mean the points i'd make would be:

a) it is not comfortable for a man to sit as close legged as a girl
b) this isn't a phenomenon i've particularly come across
c) i'm not sure that this feeds into a wider sexism, but may be more a corollary of said wider sexism. That might make more sense.

[Crixus]

Reality, as seen from beneath the Equator line (https://www.google.com/search?hl=pt&client=opera&hs=Qyx&channel=suggest&biw=1024&bih=547&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=onibus+lotado+rio+de+janeiro&oq=onibus+lotado+rio+de+janeiro&gs_l=img.3...67941.70350.0.71113.7.7.0.0.0.0.285.1 210.0j5j1.6.0...0.0...1c.1.8.img.4WIYSctBTak#imgrc =_).

Luís Henrique

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RNlGDnmLF9s/TAlla37DFiI/AAAAAAAAALs/8jWaKqL9prg/s1600/curiosidades_trem_lotado.jpg

The maker of the blog in the OP, if she has nightmares, this is it.

[Crixus]

i am in favor of women-only train cars.

Why? What about women only work place. Women only apartment complex. Women only parks. Women only city. Maybe a woman's only nations state? Are women this unsafe in public? Is this the way you see men, as a perpetual threat best kept at bay by avoiding at all cost?

[#FF0000]

Women-only train cars came about specifically because women were/are constantly groped and harassed on trains as a regular thing.

[slum]

Women-only train cars came about specifically because women were/are constantly groped and harassed on trains as a regular thing.

i'd also note that i made that statement about an article on women only train cars in japan, where this is a huge problem and is recognized as a huge problem by people other than feminists, unlike in sweden or the us.

but if people wanna get all up in my face about it hey, come at me- i'd prefer riding with ladies to you lot.

[Crixus]

i'd also note that i made that statement about an article on women only train cars in japan, where this is a huge problem and is recognized as a huge problem by people other than feminists, unlike in sweden or the us.

but if people wanna get all up in my face about it hey, come at me- i'd prefer riding with ladies to you lot.

You said you were in favor of women only train cars. I'm glad you understand it would be absurd to advocate that in the US. If you do advocate separatism as a tactic be honest about it. Do you advocate separate train cars for women in the US (or whichever western nation you're in)? If so lets see some statistics that groping and rape is so bad on trains that it warrants segregation. Where does this end? At what point? You've even gone as far as to suggest debate on the matter of segregation as a political tactic is me pushing patriarchal dynamics on you.

You're not defenseless and you're not being attacked. Stop playing the damsel in distress. All you have to do is explain why you advocate segregation as a political tactic.

[#FF0000]

You said you were in favor of women only train cars. I'm glad you understand it would be absurd to advocate that in the US. If you do advocate separatism as a tactic be honest about it. Do you advocate separate train cars for women in the US (or whichever western nation you're in)? If so lets see some statistics that groping and rape is so bad on trains that it warrants segregation. Where does this end? At what point? You've even gone as far as to suggest debate on the matter of segregation as a political tactic is me pushing patriarchal dynamics on you.

I don't know dude but it seems like slum addresses these points in that last post:


i'd also note that i made that statement about an article on women only train cars in japan, where this is a huge problem and is recognized as a huge problem by people other than feminists, unlike in sweden or the us.


Either way, I think everyone can agree that segregating train cars to stop sexual assault is a pretty shitty solution compared to the alternative of having a society in which people don't sexually harass and molest people on public transit. But it'sa stop-gap and I'd certainly prefer having that than having people attacked on trains.


You're not defenseless and you're not being attacked. Stop playing the damsel in distress. All you have to do is explain why you advocate segregation as a political tactic.

It's really weird to watch you get this aggressive for no reason, dogg. Chill.

[Crixus]

Women-only train cars came about specifically because women were/are constantly groped and harassed on trains as a regular thing.

In Japan due to trains being packed like sardines. Do you think trains should be segregated in America?

[#FF0000]

In Japan due to trains being packed like sardines. Do you think trains should be segregated in America?

Errr, it's not just a matter of people being close together. People actually molest other people on trains as purposeful, directed action.

And no, I don't think there's a need for segregated trains in America.

[Crixus]

It's really weird to watch you get this aggressive for no reason, dogg. Chill.

Not being aggressive. I simply read that she agreed with separate trains for women. I interpreted this as separatist feminist political tactic which should be placed nowhere near Marxism. Reading through this thread the amount of nonsense being passed off as even remotely relevant to the struggle is probably the source of my lack of patience combined with the other person outright making a blanket statement of racism in the other thread. In lieu of people asking that person to chill out the post was thanked. What I'm seeing here, as a sort of pattern, is some real shifty privilege theory being pushed with hints of separatism and identity politics.

It's OK though, maybe we all are indeed racist sexists who support rape? Talk about being aggressive. The people who need to
"chill" are the ones making all these silly accusations. Action/reaction ya dig? My reaction is to say, provide some evidence for these claims.

[#FF0000]

No one's making accusations other than "this is a shitty thread with shitty posts", though.

[slum]

You said you were in favor of women only train cars. I'm glad you understand it would be absurd to advocate that in the US. If you do advocate separatism as a tactic be honest about it. Do you advocate separate train cars for women in the US (or whichever western nation you're in)? If so lets see some statistics that groping and rape is so bad on trains that it warrants segregation. Where does this end? At what point? You've even gone as far as to suggest debate on the matter of segregation as a political tactic is me pushing patriarchal dynamics on you.

You're not defenseless and you're not being attacked. Stop playing the damsel in distress. All you have to do is explain why you advocate segregation as a political tactic.

i was unaware you saw my comment there as some sort of support of 'separatism as a political tactic'- it's not. i think there's a big difference between stop-gap measures and safe-spaces for women (yes, i know you hate this, but it gets really exhausting to not have a place to go and talk about the oppression you experience daily without the same endlessly repetitive sexist criticism you get for talking about it all; i see safe spaces not as 'political seperatism' or any kind of 'solution to women's oppression' but as places for oppressed groups to go to help maintain their own mental health) and stuff like lesbian separatism.

i'm not playing the damsel in distress, and i'm not "suggesting debate on the matter of segregation as a political tactic is you pushing patriarchal dynamics on me. " i've been trying to have a reasonable discussion on this thread despite the continual rudeness of certain posters. again, i am unsure why exactly you have such a giant hate-on for me as if i represent or advocate radical feminist theory. do you have me confused with someone else? as i've noted in many threads, i do not find the patriarchy model or the new third-wave intersectional model of feminism helpful.

you seem to have read engel's origin of the family..., so i assume you have some familiarity with the oppressive nature of the nuclear family. do you deny that the material base of women's oppression, coming out of the rise of class society and inheritable property, has a sexist superstructure that advocates the isolation of women in the nuclear family AKA the home and thus has an obvious interest in excluding women from public space by means of harassment and socializing women to behave differently than men in public space? as i've said here many, many times by now, i do not think that the original article is correct in making a one-to-one connection between the behaviour of men on trains and patriarchy/rape culture (both of which are terms that i think are being misused here), but i think, given the nature of women's oppression (i.e. connected to the idea of the home vs. society, public v.s private life) a discussion of this sort is relevant to the issue of women's oppression.

at this point i am seriously wondering if you have me confused with danielle or sidagma. i don't agree with everything they've said, but what they have been doing is carrying on a conversation in the face of this bizarre aggression coming from marxarchist and other posters like yourself, and seeing as they are also feminists despite my disagreements with them i feel that they are making important contributions to this discussion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

at this point i am seriously wondering if you have me confused with danielle or sidagma.
I know I haven't advocated anything that he's talking about. He just seems to be raging against an idea that no one is actually arguing.