10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

[The Feral Underclass]

Kind of harrowing really (if you are affected by street harassment, you may not want to watch this video).

A woman had herself filmed walking through NYC to make an account of the harassment women experience just walking in the street. This woman is an actor. She was harassed 108 times in a 10 hour period (and that figure does not include the catcalls and whistling). This video is some of the more sinister examples.

b1XGPvbWn0A

[Rosa Partizan]

people don't get why even "nice", "universal" comments aren't okay. It's all about context. As a guy, just ask yourself, would I say this to an 80 year old grandpa passing me by? If the answer is no: stfu you dickhead.

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah, I've seen so many people say "wow but some of them were just saying hi!"


That's daft nonsense. There's a difference between smiling and saying "hi, how are you?" to someone on the street to be friendly, and saying "hi girl how are you doin" in a way that is clearly not "just friendly".

Trying to mack on some random girl on the street =/= being friendly

[Sinister Intents]

You can even experience this online if people learn you're female. Brings back the memory of BolSickle... Also listening to my girlfriend and sister get hit on and sexually harassed pisses me off. I used to call people out on it but it lead to too many frustrating arguments with idiots who think its okay and nice to do that, or insist its what women want. I don't want to get harassed for being myself, and neither does anyone else

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, I've seen so many people say "wow but some of them were just saying hi!"


That's daft nonsense. There's a difference between smiling and saying "hi, how are you?" to someone on the street to be friendly, and saying "hi girl how are you doin" in a way that is clearly not "just friendly".

Trying to mack on some random girl on the street =/= being friendly

I agree. But what is the solution? That kind of behavior doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and legally prohibiting it would be oppressive. Until our culture changes, this kind of behavior can only be seen as a symptom of an underlying problem; we can't treat the symptom, we can only try to treat the problems itself, somehow. By the way, I'm writing this on my phone, and can't see the video, so I'm only referring to the behavior Illegalitarian mentioned.

[Illegalitarian]

I agree. But what is the solution? That kind of behavior doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, and legally prohibiting it would be oppressive. Until our culture changes, this kind of behavior can only be seen as a symptom of an underlying problem; we can't treat the symptom, we can only try to treat the problems itself, somehow. By the way, I'm writing this on my phone, and can't see the video, so I'm only referring to the behavior Illegalitarian mentioned.

I'm afraid you've answered your own question. It's a cultural issue, an issue of the way women are viewed in relation to men in our society.

As such, it's something that can only be completely fixed by changing our culture radically, which can of course only be done through revolution, the dismantling of capitalism and patriarchy alike.

Some would of course argue that abolishing the former would lead to the collapse of the latter, but misogyny and sexism far outdate capitalism, which is why any sort of successful revolution must be intersectional

[The Disillusionist]

I'm afraid you've answered your own question. It's a cultural issue, an issue of the way women are viewed in relation to men in our society.

As such, it's something that can only be completely fixed by changing our culture radically, which can of course only be done through revolution, the dismantling of capitalism and patriarchy alike.

Some would of course argue that abolishing the former would lead to the collapse of the latter, but misogyny and sexism far outdate capitalism, which is why any sort of successful revolution must be intersectional

I completely agree. That's kinda the point I was badly trying to make in the other feminism thread, is that the oppression of women is but one aspect of society, separate from but closely linked with our exploitative, capitalist social structure, which also exploits men and children. The patriarchy is simply a social structure, woven into the capitalist system that is intended to maintain a male authority over women that almost definitely existed before capitalism. Even if the patriarchy was smashed as a structure, its underlying attitudes would still need to be addressed.

Personally, I believe that for any people to be equal, all people must be equal, which is what I meant in the other thread when I said that feminists can often be too narrowly focused, whenin reality, feminism should be but one part of a larger system of thought. In my opinion, it is impossible to be a true anarchist (my political leaning) without also being an advocate for feminism, LGBT rights, and the rights of every other oppressed group of people.

[consuming negativity]

Apparently she's been receiving rape threats.

Way to go guys. That'll make this better. Totally.

:/

[Illegalitarian]

I completely agree. That's kinda the point I was badly trying to make in the other feminism thread, is that the oppression of women is but one aspect of society, separate from but closely linked with our exploitative, capitalist social structure, which also exploits men and children. The patriarchy is simply a social structure, woven into the capitalist system that is intended to maintain a male authority over women that almost definitely existed before capitalism. Even if the patriarchy was smashed as a structure, its underlying attitudes would still need to be addressed.

Personally, I believe that for any people to be equal, all people must be equal, which is what I meant in the other thread when I said that feminists can often be too narrowly focused, whenin reality, feminism should be but one part of a larger system of thought. In my opinion, it is impossible to be a true anarchist (my political leaning) without also being an advocate for feminism, LGBT rights, and the rights of every other oppressed group of people.


Indeed. If democracy without socialism is privilege and tyranny, feminism without socialism is liberal platitudes and empty theory

[D-A-C]

That's really weird ... here in the UK talking to strangers is forbidden, punishable by death!!! Or maybe in less extreme cases social awkwardness lol.

I'm just throwing this out there, but how many of the men who harassed her were non-white, I think I saw one or two white guys, but it seemed over proportionally people of colour? Although I could be wrong as I only watched it once.

Although that guy walking alongside her was creepy as hell.

[BIXX]

DAC, the massive majority of people living in NYC are POC. The instances of sexism had nothing to do with race.

ETA I haven't gotten to watch the video yet so I'm operating off the assumption that DAC is not misrepresenting the events in it.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's really weird ... here in the UK talking to strangers is forbidden, punishable by death!!! Or maybe in less extreme cases social awkwardness lol.

I'm just throwing this out there, but how many of the men who harassed her were non-white, I think I saw one or two white guys, but it seemed over proportionally people of colour? Although I could be wrong as I only watched it once.

Although that guy walking alongside her was creepy as hell.

Sorry, what?

[Illegalitarian]

I think he was making an observation rather than trying to imply anything nefarious about POC

[D-A-C]

DAC, the massive majority of people living in NYC are POC. The instances of sexism had nothing to do with race.

ETA I haven't gotten to watch the video yet so I'm operating off the assumption that DAC is not misrepresenting the events in it.

Maybe I am a secret closet racist because that's what jumped out at me on first viewing? Then again FYI were I live isn't ethnically diverse by any stretch its about 95% white, so maybe that aspect of city living just got lost on me.

Saying sexism has nothing to do with race is actually a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Is it somehow biologically related? Nope.

Is it however maybe reflective of the social circumstances of ethnic minorities in America? Maybe it has something to do with dominant media portrayals of black men degrading women in rap music videos, pornography, etc. One of my undergraduate essays discussed such a topic.

I could be completely wrong of course, maybe the video shows equal amounts of sexism across racial divides, maybe it also is simply a case of the makeup of the city.

I was just curious, because America has some unique racial problems due to its social history and I was curious about that aspect of the video.


Sorry, what?

Ok I'll bite ... what, what?


I think he was making an observation rather than trying to imply anything nefarious about POC

Thank you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Maybe I am a secret closet racist because that's what jumped out at me on first viewing? Then again FYI were I live isn't ethnically diverse by any stretch its about 95% white, so maybe that aspect of city living just got lost on me.

Saying sexism has nothing to do with race is actually a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Is it somehow biologically related? Nope.

Is it however maybe reflective of the social circumstances of ethnic minorities in America? Maybe it has something to do with dominant media portrayals of black men degrading women in rap music videos, pornography, etc. One of my undergraduate essays discussed such a topic.

I could be completely wrong of course, maybe the video shows equal amounts of sexism across racial divides, maybe it also is simply a case of the makeup of the city.

I was just curious, because America has some unique racial problems due to its social history and I was curious about that aspect of the video.



Ok I'll bite ... what, what?



Thank you.

You watched a video about sexual harassment against women and the thing that jumped out at you was how they were all black?

It's very easy to say that you were making an observation, but why the fuck would that be an observation in the first place? What could possibly be your motive for doing that? Do you normally go around looking "observing" people's race?

I don't think there is any secret that you're a racist.

[Illegalitarian]

There is definite intersectionality between racism and sexism. I'm sure that if this woman had walked through a neighborhood that was dominantly white she might be met with the same responses, though it's hard to say. Could be something to do with race, but not in any sort of "black people are more sexist inherently" type of way.

It's a tough call, maybe someone who knows more on the matter will drop in

[Slavic]

You watched a video about sexual harassment against women and the thing that jumped out at you was how they were all black?

It's very easy to say that you were making an observation, but why the fuck would that be an observation in the first place? What could possibly be your motive for doing that? Do you normally go around looking "observing" people's race?

I don't think there is any secret that you're a racist.

Because being observant of people's skin tones makes you racist? Where the hell is the logic in that?

D-A-C wasn't implying that the POC in the video harassing the woman were doing so because of their biological nature. He was using that observation to open up the discussion on how different cultures and sub-cultures differ in how they interact and portray women.

[D-A-C]

Because being observant of people's skin tones makes you racist? Where the hell is the logic in that?

D-A-C wasn't implying that the POC in the video harassing the woman were doing so because of their biological nature. He was using that observation to open up the discussion on how different cultures and sub-cultures differ in how they interact and portray women.

Seriously, thank you.

My sentiments exactly.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because being observant of people's skin tones makes you racist?

Usually, yes. What is the practical purpose for observing someone's skin colour? I'm not being rhetorical, I am asking that question. Why would you observe someone's skin colour? What is the purpose of that? What motivates your intellect when people's race "jump out" at you? Of all the things that could jump out at you when watching that video, why the fuck would people's race be that thing?

Can you answer those questions? Can DAC?


Where the hell is the logic in that?

Well, I'm trying to understand the motives here. So far they have not been explained.


D-A-C wasn't implying that the POC in the video harassing the woman were doing so because of their biological nature. He was using that observation to open up the discussion on how different cultures and sub-cultures differ in how they interact and portray women.

So his observation was to start a discussion on how black people and white people harass women differently? Why? What possible reason would you have for trying to start that discussion? What possible difference does it make to anything...

[BIXX]

Maybe I am a secret closet racist because that's what jumped out at me on first viewing? Then again FYI were I live isn't ethnically diverse by any stretch its about 95% white, so maybe that aspect of city living just got lost on me.

Saying sexism has nothing to do with race is actually a bit disingenuous if you ask me. Is it somehow biologically related? Nope.
Let me be more clear: race has no effect on sexism in the same way your comment implies.
Your "observation" was anything but innocent, it seems.


He was using that observation to open up the discussion on how different cultures and sub-cultures differ in how they interact and portray women.

Excuse me but drawing attention to the skin tone isn't really a good way to do that. If you were to say one culture seemed to do this or that sexist thing more while another race did another sexist thing more, that would be better (however IMO still not a useful observation), but saying that it seems that POC seem to do more sexist shit that white folks says to me that you wanna blame them for some shit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Seriously, thank you.

My sentiments exactly.

Maybe you should speak for yourself instead of relying on other people to interpret your scant views and then articulate a position you can agree with...

[Lord Testicles]

I'm just throwing this out there, but how many of the men who harassed her were wearing baseball caps, I think I saw one or two hatless guys, but it seemed over proportionally people who wear baseball caps? Although I could be wrong as I only watched it once.

[Illegalitarian]

I like to give people the benefit of doubt before jumping their shit. Could there be some link between sexist attitudes and race on a social level (NOT a biological one)? This is a question that could be asked and analyzed to tell us more about the cultural problems and degradation bourgeois morality has especially inflicted upon POC, but all in all it's not a race issue and should not be made into one, though the majority of those shown in the video do seem to be PoC, so I don't think this was some sort of racist comment that he made, rather, just an observation.

*shrugs*, seemed like a harmless question to me, but I'll let the man speak for himself.

[Illegalitarian]

Though there was 100+ cat calls apparently, it's impossible to know the ethnicity of all of those people over the span of 10 hours nor is it the point.

It honestly, most likely, has to do with the racial make up of NYC than anything

[RedWorker]

First of all: Thanks for the video. It underlines a real problem of which many of us manage to barely scratch the surface of through such information.

Someone said people in the video were disproportionally non-white. When watching the video, I noticed that too, even though I wasn't paying attention to such things at all. Then someone implied how noticing that is racist. Why would that be a racist? If anything, it gives something to think. Could the person who made the video have been biased in selecting which skin colours to display? Or perhaps non-white people are discriminated and thus have, for instance, a lower income or are alienated from society, and therefore they are more likely to engage in such behaviour, in a similar way to the lumpenproletariat? Or maybe it was just chance, and in a video with more people, it would be evenly distributed.

Obviously race does not exist and their skin colour does not in any way affect how they may act. But if we spot that poor people are more likely to be black, does this make us racist or are we seeing a real problem in society (they are/were discriminated so they are more likely to be poor)? Are we spotting racism or being racist?

Now, I can totally understand condemning some idiot who says such things because he really is racist and says shit like "black people are rapists". In fact, I don't know at all how more likely it is for discriminated groups to engage in such behaviour, and if there's a correlation or not (which would, again, not involve skin colours). That's why I asked.

Now, I wouldn't be asking this at all just from watching the video, I'm really only argumenting how saying such a thing isn't necessarily racist (though it can be an expression of racism). Only seeing such a video does not influence me to make such a correlation...

[The Feral Underclass]

if we spot that poor people are more likely to be black, does this make us racist or are we seeing a real problem in society? Are we spotting racism or being racist?

Acknowledging the social realities for POC is not racism. But I don't think that is a comparable example to what is happening in this thread though.

[Rosa Partizan]

There was some time ago a female student who made a video in Belgium as part of her exam. She called it "femme da la rue" (woman of the street) and filmed how guys would harass her. She got things like invitations to drinks and visiting hotel rooms (!) and stuff like "nice tits" and "slut". She got this mostly from Arab guys. When afterwards asked why they did it, many of them answered "if you wanted to be left alone, why were you walking there alone instead of having your brother or boyfriend with you?

This is something that I myself experienced that way, along with my ladyfriends: The number of MOC harassing you would be higher, seen from a proportional point of view. I think it's redundant to mention it has nothing to do with biology. It could bring up questions like: Are there cultures that are more patriarchal than others, providing a different perception of women? White guys would be harassing women en masse, no doubt about that. But usually, they wouldn't be like "you should've gone with male company".

[RedWorker]

I doubt it has to do with culture - if at all it's probably material reasons, which determine culture anyway.


When afterwards asked why they did it, many of them answered "if you wanted to be left alone, why were you walking there alone instead of having your brother or boyfriend with you?

That's annoyingly sexist.

[Illegalitarian]

Acknowledging the social realities for POC is not racism. But I don't think that is a comparable example to what is happening in this thread though.

Too soon to say but he certainly said otherwise.


There was some time ago a female student who made a video in Belgium as part of her exam. She called it "femme da la rue" (woman of the street) and filmed how guys would harass her. She got things like invitations to drinks and visiting hotel rooms (!) and stuff like "nice tits" and "slut". She got this mostly from Arab guys. When afterwards asked why they did it, many of them answered "if you wanted to be left alone, why were you walking there alone instead of having your brother or boyfriend with you?

This is something that I myself experienced that way, along with my ladyfriends: The number of MOC harassing you would be higher, seen from a proportional point of view. I think it's redundant to mention it has nothing to do with biology. It could bring up questions like: Are there cultures that are more patriarchal than others, providing a different perception of women? White guys would be harassing women en masse, no doubt about that. But usually, they wouldn't be like "you should've gone with male company".


This is why Hoxha effectively banned Islam in Albania, apparently young women in Islamic communities were being raped and attacked for walking alone.


I think, even with blacks in America, it has to do with the fact that most black people are deeply religious, which is also linked with poverty. Not just "I believe in god but I pretty much do whatever I want anyways" christian, but devout, old timey christians, and one of the central tenants of that christianity is the father being the undisputed head of the house hold, and males always being served first at dinner etc.

Since POC are stronger adherents to religion (again, likely due to poverty), it follows that they perhaps hold lesser views of women.

The same way Americans were in the late 40s and 50's, the "leave it to beaver" "father knows best" types, from where we got the archetype of the whistling construction worker.

[L.A.P.]

I don't think some of the users from the UK understand that African-American masculinity/sexism has a specificity distinct from the "softer", "chivalrous" sexism of middle-class white men.

I've hung out in quite a few social circles that were predominately African-American men, and did notice how much more aggressive they were with women. I was, in fact, uncomfortable with some of the rape-y tendencies of some of their attitudes. From what I gathered, its an affect of white supremacy. My buddies seemed to be all about being overconfident and "not giving a fuck" in order to, what one guy admitted to me, be a front masking their insecurity over the fact that so many women flat-out reject them for being black.

btw, what the hell is up with Europeans using the term "people of color"? Sounds so Jim Crow South

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think some of the users from the UK understand that African-American masculinity/sexism has a specificity distinct from the "softer", "chivalrous" sexism of middle-class white men.

What is the mickey-mouse bullshit. Do you think in the UK all the white men go around talking in an RP accent and opening doors for women? It's not a nation of James Bonds...

I have experienced middle-class white men behaving just as aggressively and "masculine" towards women as any black man. Have you ever men Rugby players? People's behaviour isn't determined by their race ffs. Different cultures of sexism exist across race and across class. Working class black men can be just as soft and chivalrous as white middle class men. Wtf.

Can we just cut this fucking nonsense out now, please?

[Illegalitarian]

What is the mickey-mouse bullshit. Do you think in the UK all the white men go around talking in an RP accent and opening doors for women? It's not a nation of James Bonds...

I have experienced middle-class white men behaving just as aggressively and "masculine" towards women as any black man. Have you ever men Rugby players? People's behaviour isn't determined by their race ffs. Different cultures of sexism exist across race and across class.

Can we just cut this fucking nonsense out now, please?

It's not about how aggressive individuals are, or how sexist, and no one is saying that black people are naturally more sexist, as if it has anything to do with biological race or some such shitty concept. It's about the fact that, due the black people in America being far more poverty stricken than any other minority group, they are more deeply religious, and thus more sexist in general, perhaps.

No one is saying anything remotely racist here as far as I can tell. As someone else said, it's also objectively true that black people are more poor and uneducated than whites in America. This is not racist, it's pointing out racism, it's pointing to these things and saying that they are fucked up and wrong, and entirely the product of shitty material conditions.

[The Disillusionist]

I doubt it has to do with culture - if at all it's probably material reasons, which determine culture anyway.



That's annoyingly sexist.

I have to jump on this, because this drives me crazy. It is TOTALLY about culture, Rosa is absolutely right. Men from a culture that has taught them that women walking alone should be treated as targets for advances would give the sorts of answers that Rosa mentioned. Women from those same cultures would likely have told the French woman the same thing. It's a matter of social learning, and you can't just ignore it as superficial. That being said, it doesn't justify racism, and you can't stereotype all dark-skinned people as sexist just because of what you might see in this video.

Second, this opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, but material conditions are not the ONLY determinant of culture. Materialism was Marx's huge contribution to social theory, and it was a major breakthrough for his time, but among social theorists today, Marx's ideas, while not wrong, are obsolete. I know that criticizing Marx is a little risky on a site dedicated in a large part to Marxist ideas, but as an anthropology student I have to say that there are better, more refined approaches in use today that still take materialism into account, but consider many more aspects as well. Seriously, this is a topic for another thread, but I would encourage Marx aficionados to acquaint themselves with at least some of the ideas of modern anthropology, they open up a whole new world of thought. Anyway, that's the end of my plug for anthropology.

Edit: I see a few people making cultural stereotypes, so I'm gonna comment a bit on that. The idea of a "culture personality," that is, a personality type that fits an entire culture of people, is also obsolete, and WRONG. Culture can teach people to respond to certain situations in certain ways, but it does not dictate people's personalities. I would actually argue that "personality" in the way that we tend to think of it doesn't exist, but that's another discussion.

[RedWorker]

It's about the fact that, due the black people in America being far more poverty stricken than any other minority group, they are more deeply religious, and thus more sexist in general, perhaps.

That's just one possible correlation of many, though, and do we even know if it's true? Though you probably were only giving an example, and maybe only explaining to him the principle behind what people are saying here, not claiming anything yourself.


I have to jump on this, because this drives me crazy. It is TOTALLY about culture, Rosa is absolutely right. Men from a culture that has taught them that women walking alone should be treated as targets for advances would give the sorts of answers that Rosa mentioned.

Why is it that the Third World has infinitely more social problems than the First World? Oh, guess it's just culture. A petty analysis. What has created this culture?


Second, this opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, but material conditions are not the ONLY determinant of culture.If you take a deterministic point of view, everything determines everything else. For example: you saw a red light and this later was responsible for your decision to become a musician. The red light determined you are a musician. Even more interesting if you take the butterfly effect into account. But what is consistent through all that is that it is the material which not only creates but is the master of the idea. Surely there are many factors that influence everything, but material conditions not only have created but are the masters of such factors.


but among social theorists today, Marx's ideas, while not wrong, are obsolete.It is the opposite ideas which are, in fact, obsolete - they are older (ancient) ideas which have been dressed with "modernity".

[Illegalitarian]

That's just one possible correlation of many, though, and do we even know if it's true? Though you probably were only giving an example, and maybe only explaining to him the principle behind what people are saying here, not claiming anything yourself.

Absolutely we do. It's a fact that the poor tend to be more religious, and it's also a fact that minorities are far more poverty stricken due to the treatment they receive as minorities.

Why do you think countries like Iraq and Afghanistan produce more radical Muslims than the UAE, Malaysia etc? Of course, religion does play a small role in and of itself, but it is the poverty that is the material, it is the reason for the idea.

Correlation does not equal causation, mind you, and there are possibly other factors, but this seems to be the dominating factor.






It is the opposite ideas which are, in fact, obsolete - they are older (ancient) ideas which have been dressed with "modernity".


Yeah, Marxism is the very foundation of modern sociology, so I'm not sure why one would claim that marxism is irrelevant to modern social theory.

[Loony Le Fist]

What a bunch of creeps. They don't seem to get that you don't get to know people by acting that way. If you think someone is attractive and you want to approach them, just walk up and introduce yourself. What's the worst that will happen? You get blown out? That's life. The sideline yelling is not attractive.

The lines were totally lame too. The uncalibrated self-deprecator who asked if he was too ugly was priceless. :laugh: This video tore me between laughter and disgust at what I saw.

Truth be told I feel more sorry for these pathetic excuses. Not only do they totally suck at opening a conversation with people, they are contributing to the objectification of women.

This would have been a far less disgusting video if these individuals simply had tried to actually start a conversation with her. More than anything this video highlights how embedded rape culture is, and how there is a complete lack of social skills among men. The patriarchy is the gift that keeps on giving.

[The Disillusionist]

That's just one possible correlation of many, though, and do we even know if it's true? Though you probably were only giving an example, and maybe only explaining to him the principle behind what people are saying here, not claiming anything yourself.



Why is it that the Third World has infinitely more social problems than the First World? Oh, guess it's just culture. A petty analysis. What has created this culture?



If you take a deterministic point of view, everything determines everything else. For example: you saw a red light and this later was responsible for your decision to become a musician. The red light determined you are a musician. But what is consistent through all that it is that it is the material which not only creates but is the master of the idea. Surely there are many factors that influence everything, but material conditions not only have created but are the masters of such factors.



It is the opposite ideas which are, in fact, obsolete - they are older (ancient) ideas which have been dressed with "modernity".


Usually, yes. What is the practical purpose for observing someone's skin colour? I'm not being rhetorical, I am asking that question. Why would you observe someone's skin colour? What is the purpose of that? What motivates your intellect when people's race "jump out" at you? Of all the things that could jump out at you when watching that video, why the fuck would people's race be that thing?

Can you answer those questions? Can DAC?



Well, I'm trying to understand the motives here. So far they have not been explained.



So his observation was to start a discussion on how black people and white people harass women differently? Why? What possible reason would you have for trying to start that discussion? What possible difference does it make to anything...

The Third World has more social problems for a wide variety of reasons, the two that come immediately to mind being exploitation by the western world and environmental conditions. That doesn't change the fact that before the religion of Islam was spread in the Middle East, that area had very different values, and since the 70s, when there were a number of Iranian revolutions and religious revivals, values in the region have drastically changed again. That's one part of what I mean, materialism doesn't adequately explain the diffusion and competition of religions and ideals.

Culture is the product of a nearly infinite number of things, including plain old human thought, which can't be reduced to simple material influence. Not to mention the fact that nearly identical material conditions often result in very different cultures.

Finally, no, Marxist thought is obsolete, as are the forms of thought that came before it. There are some recurring themes, but ideas get refined over time. Marxist materialism was nice for explaining many things back in the day, but it fell short in trying to explain process, social learning, or aspects of society not directly related to means of production. To align yourself that narrowly with a social theory that was created over a century ago is to severely limit your understanding of culture. There ARE much better, much more modern approaches now. Human Behavioral Ecology, for example, is one modern approach that wasn't even possible in ancient times, due to it's highly scientific approach. HBE is influenced by materialism, but also includes systems theory and structural-functionalist ideas. Structural-functionalism, though it falls short in some ways, and though it is a rather old approach itself, also explains some things much better than Marxist materialism does.

Also, Marxism is NOT the foundation of modern sociology. His ideas were very important, but there were materialists before Marx, like L.H. Morgan, and there have been materialists since who have greatly improved on Marx's OBSOLETE ideas. Also Emile Durkheim, with his theory of structuralism, is considered the father of modern sociology. However, I'm not a sociologist, but the sense I got from the last sociology class I took was that sociologists stopped thinking about anything new around 1940 and just kind made stuff up as the went along from there.

[Loony Le Fist]

There are respectful and polite ways to approach people that catch your interest. These are not them.

[L.A.P.]

What is the mickey-mouse bullshit. Do you think in the UK all the white men go around talking in an RP accent and opening doors for women? It's not a nation of James Bonds...



I did not at all imply that, I implied that you likely could count the amount of men of African descent you've met IRL on your left hand. I may be right, I may be wrong, but that was the assumption I was implying. Even at that, I was talking about African-American culture, which obviously doesn't exist in the UK. You're not proving how anti-racist you are by denying that a disproportionate amount of men harassing that woman were non-white.


I have experienced middle-class white men behaving just as aggressively and "masculine" towards women as any black man. Have you ever men Rugby players?



Worse, I've met white bourgeois frat boys....




People's behaviour isn't determined by their race ffs. Different cultures of sexism exist across race and across class. Working class black men can be just as soft and chivalrous as white middle class men. Wtf.



Which is exactly what I'm trying to say. That "different cultures of sexism exist across race and class". Nothing you said negated what I said, just adds much needed nuance to it.



If you interpreted what I posted to be portraying it as a black-and-white phenomena (the phrase, not black and white races) rather than nuanced, then that's my mistake. I'm typing in a rush

[RedWorker]

In what way does Marxism contradict newer findings? Here I'm using Marxism to understand the root of a political social problem, that's all. Some people think that Marxism is meant to replace mathematics, biology and physics, and that if it's not capable to do all that then it's "wrong"...

[Illegalitarian]

Also, Marxism is NOT the foundation of modern sociology. His ideas were very important, but there were materialists before Marx, like L.H. Morgan, and there have been materialists since who have greatly improved on Marx's OBSOLETE ideas. Also Emile Durkheim, with his theory of structuralism, is considered the father of modern sociology. However, I'm not a sociologist, but the sense I got from the last sociology class I took was that sociologists stopped thinking about anything new around 1940 and just kind made stuff up as the went along from there.


As someone acquainted well with the field and many of those in it, you would be hard pressed to find a sociologist who would disagree with the assertion that, if there truly is one "father of sociology", it's Karl Marx, and indeed, a great many modern sociologists are marxists.

[The Disillusionist]

In what way does Marxism contradict newer findings? Here I'm using Marxism to understand the root of a political social problem, that's all. Some people think that Marxism is meant to replace mathematics, biology and physics, and that if it's not capable to do all that then it's "wrong"...

Ah, see, this is the core of our misunderstanding. Marxism does NOT usually contradict newer findings. It simply fails to explain as much as newer approaches, which have been heavily influenced by Marxism, do. As I said, Marxist ideas are not WRONG, they are obsolete. Like Newtonian physics have been replaced by relativistic physics, the Marxist platform was useful, but has been replaced by newer platforms that explain more, in a more precise manner.

[Illegalitarian]

Those newer theories are being built, for the most part, on a marxist foundation, however, using marxism as a frame of reference. So it's not correct to say that marxism is "obsolete", it gives the impression that Marxism is no longer relevant or used in sociology, which is not the case.

[The Disillusionist]

As someone acquainted well with the field and many of those in it, you would be hard pressed to find a sociologist who would disagree with the assertion that, if there truly is one "father of sociology", it's Karl Marx, and indeed, a great many modern sociologists are marxists.

No offense, but that isn't true in the least. However, I shouldn't have said that Durkheim is considered the father of modern sociology either, because you are right in that regard, sociologists tend to adopt the "father" of sociology that they most agree with. Some adopt Durkheim, some adopt Compte, and some adopt Marx. However, I would hardly call Marx the majority favorite.

But, Neo-Marxism as an approach to social thinking died out in the field of anthropology in the late 70's, and even before then it wasn't the most important field. It's no longer a viable theory, not because it is wrong, but because it is obsolete. However, many sociologists haven't really moved on (the structural-functionalists have this same issue, they refuse to move on). This is why modern sociology is a dying field, with dwindling funding and dwindling relevance.


Those newer theories are being built, for the most part, on a marxist foundation, however, using marxism as a frame of reference. So it's not correct to say that marxism is "obsolete", it gives the impression that Marxism is no longer relevant or used in sociology, which is not the case.

I need to figure out how to multi-quote... (Edit: copy-pasted two posts into one). But anyway, Marxism as a specific field of thought is really no longer used, at least not for any productive research. It is materialism that is still relevant and used quite often, even though that materialism has been modified quite a bit.

[Illegalitarian]

No offense, but that isn't true in the least. However, I shouldn't have said that Durkheim is considered the father of modern sociology either, because you are right in that regard, sociologists tend to adopt the "father" of sociology that they most agree with. Some adopt Durkheim, some adopt Compte, and some adopt Marx. However, I would hardly call Marx the majority favorite.

I've honestly never heard of nor met a sociologist, even the conservative ones (those do exist!), who deny that Marx was the most influential figure on the field and the father of what we know today as sociology. I'm not sure where you're getting that this isn't the case but it kind of objectively is.



I need to figure out how to multi-quote... (Edit: copy-pasted two posts into one). But anyway, Marxism as a specific field of thought is really no longer used, at least not for any productive research. It is materialism that is still relevant and used quite often, even though that materialism has been modified quite a bit.
[/QUOTE]

When analyzing different groups of people and how they relate to other groups of people, how their social relations are defined, etc, marxism is absolutely used.. I minored in this field in a southern university and Marx was used as a frame of reference, or rather, marxian models, on pretty much everything or every relevant body of research I've ever seen.

[The Disillusionist]

I've honestly never heard of nor met a sociologist, even the conservative ones (those do exist!), who deny that Marx was the most influential figure on the field and the father of what we know today as sociology. I'm not sure where you're getting that this isn't the case but it kind of objectively is.

When analyzing different groups of people and how they relate to other groups of people, how their social relations are defined, etc, marxism is absolutely used.. I minored in this field in a southern university and Marx was used as a frame of reference, or rather, marxian models, on pretty much everything or every relevant body of research I've ever seen.

Google "Father of Sociology" for a taste of how contentious that debate is. My intro to sociology textbook didn't even list Marx as one of the top three, those were Durkheim, Weber, and DuBois.

For social relations, I could see conflict theory, which is very Marxian, being used. However, I could argue that without systems/communication/game theory, that Marxian approach would fall short.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Google "Father of Sociology" for a taste of how contentious that debate is. My intro to sociology textbook didn't even list Marx as one of the top three, those were Durkheim, Weber, and DuBois.

For social relations, I could see conflict theory, which is very Marxian, being used. However, I could argue that without systems/communication/game theory, that Marxian approach would fall short.

Most sources I've looked at list Marx, Weber and Durkheim as the "big three". Not to mention Durkheim was born in 1858, Weber in 1864 I believe, long after Marx (1818-1883) had laid the groundwork for sociology

[The Disillusionist]

Most sources I've looked at list Marx, Weber and Durkheim as the "big three". Not to mention Durkheim was born in 1858, Weber in 1864 I believe, long after Marx (1818-1883) had laid the groundwork for sociology

Marx's works weren't really popularized until late in his life though, and in the social sciences the Marxist approach wasn't really used until the early-mid 20th century. And you forgot Compte, who was around long before Marx, and coined the term "sociology".

[PhoenixAsh]

Interestingly enough in debates with my Muslima friends the opposite point emerges that they experience more unwanted attention, sexist comments etc from white men rather than from men from Muslim cultures.

[Slavic]

Those newer theories are being built, for the most part, on a marxist foundation, however, using marxism as a frame of reference. So it's not correct to say that marxism is "obsolete", it gives the impression that Marxism is no longer relevant or used in sociology, which is not the case.


I have to butt in; something can be obsolete while also providing the foundation for newer methods/innovations.

I can't think of a field of science off hand, but this can easily be applied to technology. Analog computers provided the foundation for digital computers but are now obsolete. We can look back and study the designs and logic within the analog computers to help further development, but they will remain obsolete.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also... Femme de la Rue was filmed in the immigrant portion of Anneesses. So it does indeed show a disproportional amount of non white people.

This stands of course opposed to the very respectful way in which the French parliament member who was catcalled in parliament by fellow MP members.

So tell me again how this is a cultural/ethnic thing...


:rolleyes:

[D-A-C]

Sorry, what?

This started the ball rolling and completely typifies your entire faux-shock, politically correct attitude to an innocent statement.

That's the best you could respond with? Two words? Even assuming I had said the most racist statement ever ... that was your response?

No rebuttal, no nothing ... two words ... shock ... horror ... "What did he say???!!!"



You watched a video about sexual harassment against women and the thing that jumped out at you was how they were all black?

It's very easy to say that you were making an observation, but why the fuck would that be an observation in the first place? What could possibly be your motive for doing that? Do you normally go around looking "observing" people's race?

I don't think there is any secret that you're a racist.

Yeah I did make that observation and what that subtly meant was I was making a correlation between the inherent biologically determined aggressive tendencies of black people and the sexism witnessed in the video. But you were too clever for me, you ripped off my mask.

Why did I do it? Well honestly it was because it just so happened that right before posting I had just got home from my local Nazi Party reading group were we had a good long chat about eugenics and I thought it would be a good laugh to come onto a Marxist forum and spout my racist theories.

Oh wait ... no I didn't. (I thought I better make that clear or my sarcasm might completely go over your head.)



The point I made in my opening was of what I perceived as massive cultural difference between UK and US attitudes and approaches to women. Do women get sexually harassed in public here in the UK? Definately, but I have never experienced that amount of persistent unwanted advances on a totally unremarkable woman in public in London where I find, in my day-to-day experience, people generally keep themselves to themselves.

So already I feel there is a cultural difference at play here.

Then, it happens that in that video, proportionally a larger number of the men seem to be black, why is that? Does it have anything to do with America's particular social problems revolving around race?

But wait ... why am I even noticing in the first place?

Seriously, what kind of question is that? What the hell is this 1984? Am I guilty of some thought crime? Damn my racist mind!!! Damn it to hell!!!



Let me be more clear: race has no effect on sexism in the same way your comment implies.
Your "observation" was anything but innocent, it seems.

You mean biologically? Because that's what I obviously meant (sarcasm).

Or is it possible I was maybe curious about possible social implications of race relations in America determining how males of one race relate to females of another as opposed to the UK?




Excuse me but drawing attention to the skin tone isn't really a good way to do that. If you were to say one culture seemed to do this or that sexist thing more while another race did another sexist thing more, that would be better (however IMO still not a useful observation), but saying that it seems that POC seem to do more sexist shit that white folks says to me that you wanna blame them for some shit.

'If you were to say one culture seemed to do this or that sexist thing more while another race did another sexist thing more...'

What the hell does that mean? Maybe it's because it's 12am and I'm tired, but why have you jumped from 'culture' to 'race' in one sentence, and why is talking about 'race' better? Which is it, culture or race?

Yeah, I totally wanna 'blame them for some shit' those damn black people and their sexism!!! While I am at it, let me throw in my anger at their drug usage, poverty and committing of crimes. I'm all about the colour blame game. Damn non-whites.



Usually, yes. What is the practical purpose for observing someone's skin colour? I'm not being rhetorical, I am asking that question. Why would you observe someone's skin colour? What is the purpose of that? What motivates your intellect when people's race "jump out" at you? Of all the things that could jump out at you when watching that video, why the fuck would people's race be that thing?

Can you answer those questions? Can DAC?

Are you taking the piss? What is the practical purpose of observing someones skin colour? How about, off the top of my head, pretty much all discrimination studies that revolve around how people are disadvantage and oppressed because of their skin colour?

You want to honestly know why it jumped out at me, honestly, with no sarcasm ... because it did. That's why it jumped out at me. And you know what? When I want to point something out because I notice it I'm damn well going to, whether you, with your complete bullshit mock-offense attitude want me to or not.



So his observation was to start a discussion on how black people and white people harass women differently? Why? What possible reason would you have for trying to start that discussion? What possible difference does it make to anything...

Yeah it was, because if proportionally a larger number of those who harassed her where black or coloured as opposed to non-white that may have important sociological implications.


Maybe you should speak for yourself instead of relying on other people to interpret your scant views and then articulate a position you can agree with...

Are you f*cking kidding me, I can't thank someone for their post? I'm not even bothering responding to that crap. Coming out with something like that says alot about the type of person you are, and it's not a very nice one to put it mildly.


What is the mickey-mouse bullshit. Do you think in the UK all the white men go around talking in an RP accent and opening doors for women? It's not a nation of James Bonds...

I have experienced middle-class white men behaving just as aggressively and "masculine" towards women as any black man. Have you ever men Rugby players? People's behaviour isn't determined by their race ffs. Different cultures of sexism exist across race and across class. Working class black men can be just as soft and chivalrous as white middle class men. Wtf.

Can we just cut this fucking nonsense out now, please?

Seriously, what are you, some sort of thought police? People can and should express their opinions if they want, just because you don't agree with people here doesn't give you some sort of right to shut people down or completely belittle their ideas in a childish way.

Get over yourself.

And one last time, it's people like you with your completely bullshit overthetop 'every statement regarding race is racist' attitude that do the real harm to modern race relations. What you do is shut down all discussions revolving around race because 'it doesn't exist'. Guess what, it f*cking does exist and millions, if not billions of people suffer globally because it exists. And your phony concern and pretending your so advanced that you don't even see skin colour does f*ck all to help alleviate their problems and suffering.

If I see something, I'm saying it, whether you call me racist or not.

Honestly though give yourself a post-race pat on the back because your awesome ... slow clap* ... tell me pretty please how can I be more like you?

[Illegalitarian]

Also... Femme de la Rue was filmed in the immigrant portion of Anneesses. So it does indeed show a disproportional amount of non white people.

This stands of course opposed to the very respectful way in which the French parliament member who was catcalled in parliament by fellow MP members.

So tell me again how this is a cultural/ethnic thing...


:rolleyes:

None of this refutes such an assertion, however.



I have to butt in; something can be obsolete while also providing the foundation for newer methods/innovations.

I can't think of a field of science off hand, but this can easily be applied to technology. Analog computers provided the foundation for digital computers but are now obsolete. We can look back and study the designs and logic within the analog computers to help further development, but they will remain obsolete.


I understand this and I understand that this doesn't mean Marx was "wrong" or is "obsolete" but rather it means modern sociological concepts are extremely weak foundations the further they deviate from Marxian concepts, however I would not say marxism is obsolete if many of its central concepts are still used, rather than exclusively being the foundation for new methods.


Marx's works weren't really popularized until late in his life though, and in the social sciences the Marxist approach wasn't really used until the early-mid 20th century. And you forgot Compte, who was around long before Marx, and coined the term "sociology".


There's not much of a debate, honestly. There is a debate about who really first delved into looking and analyzing society, but when it comes to the most influential figure there is no debate among the mainstream.

Game theory, communication etc are only sum parts of Marxian concepts that explained such concepts in a way that made them relate to the whole

[Illegalitarian]

THAT BEING SAID:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/29/catcalling_video_hollaback_s_look_at_street_harass ment_in_nyc_edited_out.html


The video is a collaboration between Hollaback!, an anti-street harassment organization, and the marketing agency Rob Bliss Creative. At the end they claim the woman experienced 100 plus incidents of harassment “involving people of all backgrounds.” Since that obviously doesn’t show up in the video, Bliss addressed it in a post. He wrote, “we got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera” or was ruined by a siren or other noise. The final product, he writes, “is not a perfect representation of everything that happened.” That may be true but if you find yourself editing out all the catcalling white guys, maybe you should try another take.

[The Disillusionist]

None of this refutes such an assertion, however.




I understand this and I understand that this doesn't mean Marx was "wrong" or is "obsolete" but rather it means modern sociological concepts are extremely weak foundations the further they deviate from Marxian concepts, however I would not say marxism is obsolete if many of its central concepts are still used, rather than exclusively being the foundation for new methods.



There's not much of a debate, honestly. There is a debate about who really first delved into looking and analyzing society, but when it comes to the most influential figure there is no debate among the mainstream.

Game theory, communication etc are only sum parts of Marxian concepts that explained such concepts in a way that made them relate to the whole

I don't agree with this elevation of Marx's ideas to gospel. He was just a guy, and his ideas were important for his time, but I wouldn't call him the godhead of all social thinking, and he is NOT somehow responsible for game theory or systems theory or all these other theoretical innovations since his time, that was later thinkers like John Von Neumann, and Gregory Bateson (not Marxists in the least, but still geniuses). And there are foundations OTHER than Marxist theory that also explain society very well, like Structural-Functionalism, as I've mentioned.

I also think that it's important to separate Marx's social ideas from his political ideas. Just because Marxist materialism was rather crude doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Communism. In fact, it would be probably be just as easy to argue for Communism using any other social theory.

[Illegalitarian]

No other social theory would properly explain as a concept or theory what communism is, however, without relying on a plethora of idealistic garbage.

Of course Marx isn't gospel. Like any science, Marxism is falsifiable. It's entirely possible that someone could come up with a social theory or a methodological approach to analyzing social relations past and present, explaining why things are the way they are and how they came to be. It's just that no one has, and until they have, any deviation from Marxism when it comes to politics/social theory is bound to be rooted in foolish metaphysical notions.

[The Disillusionist]

No other social theory would properly explain as a concept or theory what communism is, however, without relying on a plethora of idealistic garbage.

Of course Marx isn't gospel. Like any science, Marxism is falsifiable. It's entirely possible that someone could come up with a social theory or a methodological approach to analyzing social relations past and present, explaining why things are the way they are and how they came to be. It's just that no one has, and until they have, any deviation from Marxism when it comes to politics/social theory is bound to be rooted in foolish metaphysical notions.

This has been done many times since Marx's days.

Structural-Functionalism could easily explain Communism in many ways that Marxism couldn't, as could ecological anthropology.

Symbolic/interpretive anthropology might have a little trouble explaining Communism, but that isn't really the purpose of symbolic anthropology, that's more of a top-end approach meant to study shared beliefs.

Post-modernist anthropology, I will admit, could not even begin to explain Communism, because it can't begin to explain anything, not even itself. Postmodernism in general is the kind of useless metaphysical foolishness that you mentioned, so I'll give you that one.

Anyway, I would hardly call Marxism scientific. It's close, but it still a little too speculative, it is impossible to test Marx's generalizations about the influence of means of production on society, because it is not possible to isolate those few variables clearly enough. In fact, this was the anarchist Kropotkin's criticism of Marxism, that it wasn't based enough in science, as Kropotkin believed his own theory of anarcho-communism was (though his own work was flawed). And as I mentioned before, Human Behavioral Ecology is far more scientific than Marxism. Middle Range Theory, the theory about theories that finally made social science more of a real science wasn't developed until after World War II.

Overall, there have been several deviations from Marxism, and several of them have been extremely fruitful in a scientific sense.

[Illegalitarian]

Those things could explain communism, but again in a pretty disingenuous way divorced from its original context, which makes it ultimately pretty meaningless.

Marx's theories are clearly demonstrable and can be and have been observed, it would be pretty hard to argue that Marxism is not scientific. Not being able to control for certain variables only means that certain conclusions might not be correct, but we can't very well say they're wrong until they've been proven to be, which they have not.

It's not that it's impossible to deviate from Marxism, it's just that doing so gives us an inaccurate and incomplete analysis of social relations, or more simply, why things are the way they are socially, culturally, politically etc.

[The Disillusionist]

Those things could explain communism, but again in a pretty disingenuous way divorced from its original context, which makes it ultimately pretty meaningless.

Marx's theories are clearly demonstrable and can be and have been observed, it would be pretty hard to argue that Marxism is not scientific. Not being able to control for certain variables only means that certain conclusions might not be correct, but we can't very well say they're wrong until they've been proven to be, which they have not.

It's not that it's impossible to deviate from Marxism, it's just that doing so gives us an inaccurate and incomplete analysis of social relations, or more simply, why things are the way they are socially, culturally, politically etc.

What original context? Marxism couldn't explain Communism as a product of social learning or as a socially maintained structure or as a set of cultural symbolic interactions or even as an economic system as a product of unique environmental conditions. All of those approaches explain different parts of the same thing. Marxism ONLY explains that very narrow aspect of Communism that is directly linked to the means of production. That's why there's been such controversy about post-revolution Communism, because Marxism really doesn't have the analytical base to delve into that aspect.

Also your point about certain conclusions not being proven incorrect is the perfect example for why Marxism isn't strictly science. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, otherwise it is not scientific, only speculation. It's the same argument for religion, there MIGHT be a God, after all, we can't prove there isn't one.

[consuming negativity]

This thread went from "fucking Christ I was hoping we wouldn't have this thread because it's just going to piss me off", to "lmao why are we talking about race", and now to... I don't even know.

It's sort of off-topic, then, to say this, but I was taught that among the "founding fathers" of sociology, Durkheim was foremost because it was his work that separated sociology from psychology as an independent field of study. Clearly you know what you're talking about to some degree, Lantz, but to claim that the field is dying or that we just pick and choose who we want to say did this or that is... well, wrong. Marx is probably the oldest and longest-lasting influential voice in the field, but there's still new shit that's incredible, and a surprising amount of the stuff like this in the OP would fall directly into the sociological field.

[consuming negativity]

Also, Phoenix, not to speak about shit that's not my business, but watching you go after someone in threads who specifically has tried to ignore your posts is a bit... well... a bit too in the spirit of the OP if you ask me!

[The Disillusionist]

This thread went from "fucking Christ I was hoping we wouldn't have this thread because it's just going to piss me off", to "lmao why are we talking about race", and now to... I don't even know.

It's sort of off-topic, then, to say this, but I was taught that among the "founding fathers" of sociology, Durkheim was foremost because it was his work that separated sociology from psychology as an independent field of study. Clearly you know what you're talking about to some degree, Lantz, but to claim that the field is dying or that we just pick and choose who we want to say did this or that is... well, wrong. Marx is probably the oldest and longest-lasting influential voice in the field, but there's still new shit that's incredible, and a surprising amount of the stuff like this in the OP would fall directly into the sociological field.

Yeah, I'll admit, it wasn't really fair for me to say that the whole field is dying, I just have a pet peeve for those sociologists who insist on staying stuck in the past when, as you say, the new stuff is awesome.

[RedWorker]

Split the thread. I suggest that a moderator puts all these posts into another thread.

[Illegalitarian]

What original context? Marxism couldn't explain Communism as a product of social learning or as a socially maintained structure or as a set of cultural symbolic interactions or even as an economic system as a product of unique environmental conditions. All of those approaches explain different parts of the same thing. Marxism ONLY explains that very narrow aspect of Communism that is directly linked to the means of production. That's why there's been such controversy about post-revolution Communism, because Marxism really doesn't have the analytical base to delve into that aspect.

No offense, but have you read Marx? Marx explains communism the only way it needs to be explained, as a mode of production in relation to other historical modes of production and the material conditions conducive to its being. Just because it doesn't go over every minute detail of what an actual communist society should look like doesn't speak to any sort of fault in its analysis of class society and class relations throughout history, and how they have shaped the world around us, although it certainly does give us an analytical base to do so (indeed, the only base used to delve into this aspect by later theorists, such as Kropotkin et al).


Also your point about certain conclusions not being proven incorrect is the perfect example for why Marxism isn't strictly science. According to the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, otherwise it is not scientific, only speculation. It's the same argument for religion, there MIGHT be a God, after all, we can't prove there isn't one.

It's not that they can't be, it's that they've not been proven incorrect. The theory of evolution has not been proven incorrect, that doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable.

If some other methodology for approaching social theory comes along that proves to be more concise or capable of explaining social relations and how they relate to one another, how this influences and indeed makes up society, etc, then that is that. It's just that, well, there isn't such a thing.

[The Disillusionist]

No offense, but have you read Marx? Marx explains communism the only way it needs to be explained, as a mode of production in relation to other historical modes of production and the material conditions conducive to its being. Just because it doesn't go over every minute detail of what an actual communist society should look like doesn't speak to any sort of fault in its analysis of class society and class relations throughout history, and how they have shaped the world around us, although it certainly does give us an analytical base to do so (indeed, the only base used to delve into this aspect by later theorists, such as Kropotkin et al).



It's not that they can't be, it's that they've not been proven incorrect. The theory of evolution has not been proven incorrect, that doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable.

If some other methodology for approaching social theory comes along that proves to be more concise or capable of explaining social relations and how they relate to one another, how this influences and indeed makes up society, etc, then that is that. It's just that, well, there isn't such a thing.

Indeed I have read Marx, and I disagree. Marx makes HUGE generalizations and as a result leaves huge gaps of understanding his theory. Marxian materialism explains some of the rough patterns of society, but there is SO much that he ignores, and he overemphasizes material to an extreme degree, erroneously claiming that everything else in culture is simply a result of those material conditions without really describing that process in any satisfactory manner. Even when describing economic theory, he basically lumps everything into three stage models, feudalism, capitalism, and communism, a notoriously bad approach that ignores a huge amount of variety and differing social conditions. He read the cultures of the western world SO BADLY that he actually believed that Communism would come most easily to the US. If he had considered anything other than materialism, like the US's social construction of a competitive work ethic based on Protestant ideals (thank you Weber), he would have known better.

Marx's main contribution is the idea that material conditions affect culture. This was a breakthrough at the time, but that kind of materialism is only a fractional part of modern theories because, as people tend to do with new ideas, Marx abused it and didn't consider anything else, like Spencer did with the theory of natural selection, leading in a large part to the creation of Social Darwinism.

And finally, if I can't create a hypothesis and immediately test it, it is not yet science. And I would argue that Marxist ideas will never be testable in that way because they are too crude, and too broad, they don't have enough meat to them to really describe things specifically enough to be tested. As I said before, Marxism is like Newtonian physics, it explains broad stuff, a lot of the time, but it breaks down when you try to apply it to more complex aspects. That's why newer, more efficient theories have taken its place.

[Illegalitarian]

I think your problem here stems from trying to understand Marx from a mechanicalist view, as if he had to break down everything to the sum of its parts specifically to be correct (it's also a gross oversimplification to state that he somehow only viewed history as consisting of three modes of production, excluding primitive communism and the slave states of old, and the room he gave feudalism due to the fact that it encompassed such a wide spectrum of social relations across the world.

Marx came to the correct conclusion about the US, no need to take in idealist notions of some sort of religious work ethic superseding material conditions. Hell, the US was the biggest hotbed for revolutionary organizations and activity in the world, arguably, for many years. There's a reason we had the red scare while other countries were experiencing surges in right-wing movements.


Any of Marx's ideas can be immediately confirmed just by looking at history, even a crude reductionist understanding of it, I would say.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

There were definitely instances of harassment in that video. Some of it was in fact quite childish in nature.

I do, however, think that the video has one flaw in that it lumped the instances of harassment, with instances of what were completely benign greetings. Someone who follows a woman around and shouts "Damn girl look at that ass!" is definitely harassing someone (and is also a major douchebag). Someone simply saying 'Have a good day." and then walking away is not harassment.

But of course, context is everything, and I can't speak for all women (or women period, me being a man and all).

[Rosa Partizan]

Also... Femme de la Rue was filmed in the immigrant portion of Anneesses. So it does indeed show a disproportional amount of non white people.

This stands of course opposed to the very respectful way in which the French parliament member who was catcalled in parliament by fellow MP members.

So tell me again how this is a cultural/ethnic thing...


:rolleyes:

This post makes really a lot of sense, especially with me writing:



White guys would be harassing women en masse, no doubt about that.

I will ask you kindly to stop leeching and referring to my posts, because nothing good and honest will come from it. You will distort my posts to write bullshit as seen above. Thank you in advance for respecting my request.

[Rosa Partizan]

There were definitely instances of harassment in that video. Some of it was in fact quite childish in nature.

I do, however, think that the video has one flaw in that it lumped the instances of harassment, with instances of what were completely benign greetings. Someone who follows a woman around and shouts "Damn girl look at that ass!" is definitely harassing someone (and is also a major douchebag). Someone simply saying 'Have a good day." and then walking away is not harassment.

But of course, context is everything, and I can't speak for all women (or women period, me being a man and all).

Just a current experience from 2 days ago: Construction workers smiling at me and saying good morning while ignoring the older people that walked past in front of me. As a woman ignoring that: You're a b.itch. It's not severe harassment, for sure, but why is it necessary at all? Why am I (and soooo many other women) the center of attention when I don't aim for it?

[Illegalitarian]

I don't understand the psychology behind it.

I mean obviously if you're in a club or some other social setting more conducive to guys and girls hooking up, it's acceptable to approach someone you're attracted to and try and lay down your moves on them so to speak.


But as a construction worker, macking on some random woman walking by, what is your goal? What are you hoping to achieve? What, you yell "dang look at that butt" and she just comes back and has sex with you on the spot? What the fuck is going through their heads when they say these things? What is the outcome they're looking for?

[Loony Le Fist]

As a minority and hispanic male I can tell you personally there is pressure to be a mujeriego. If you don't know what that means, it refers to a man that can bed lots of women. Of course, this pressure isn't unique to the hispanic community. I have noticed a similar pressures in all communities. While similar these pressures are different and framed differently.

It's wrong to place guys under the pressure that they are inadequate if they don't bed enough women. It's even more wrong to make women feel like they are whores if they give in to these pressures, then also criticize them for being uptight for not being sexually active. The good old slut/prude dichotomy. If you're a woman you are fucked no matter what you do.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also, Phoenix, not to speak about shit that's not my business, but watching you go after someone in threads who specifically has tried to ignore your posts is a bit... well... a bit too in the spirit of the OP if you ask me!

Hey listen you fuck face. Maybe you should check what the fuck you are saying when you white knight for somebody and make a complete idiot out of yourself.

You know this. You commented on this. So you deserve every word I write in this post for your scummy, vile attempt at slandering here.

When I make a post and then immediately get 5 whatsapp messages in my personal life shouting abuse at me about that post and because of that post...then somebody is coming after me.

And it really isn't like the OP at all.

Fucking idiot.

Now why am I participating in this thread is two fold.

One. WOC gove opposite statements to the claim that this is actually an ethnic problem.

And again...no surprise...Rosa does something she should be well aware off.

Femme de la Rue is not some obscure video here. It sparked a huge debate. One of the points of contention about the video is that it has been hugely picked up by the far right and used as evidence in order to villify POC. As it turns out...the video had not only been editted....but it was largely shot in an immigrant community. So yeah...if taken these two points in consideration the video doesn't actually show at all what Rosa says the video shows. And she should be aware of these facts.

That is her leaving that out. Not me.


And I think it is pretty fucking relevant if you claim racial and ethnic origins of the problem based on shoddy evidence.

[Rosa Partizan]

it's really poor that as a mod, you have to insult people that didn't insult you with a single word. I've seen that pretty often coming from you. It's poor behavior and I don't know why you're mentioning my whatsapp messages all the time. Obsessed much? Feel free to post them, this would be much better than just talk all the time about them, leaving it to people's imagination what the content might have been. After all, that's what you want people to think, right? Why else would you fill your posts with words like "in my personal life"? Where else are whatsapp messages supposed to arrive? In Narnia?

Concerning FdlR: The female student never accused POC of anything. In fact, after the debate got heated, she said she was living in an area with rather immigrant population and that this was no attempt to get agreement from the political right. She was just trying to show what the average day as a woman looks like. But you're even trying to erase my experiences, those of my ladyfriends and plenty of other women in Germany that state the same things, namely an overproportional amount of harassment from MOC. This is just an observation, not saying anything about circumstances of socialization, just asking: Could this be somehow at least partly explained by culture? If no, what else are the factors? Let's not pretend that every culture has the same role of woman in their society. So it could be a factor, but it doesn't need to. Yet you come up with childish arguments like: Some white parliament guys molested someone. Wow. Slow clap.

[consuming negativity]

Hey listen you fuck face. Maybe you should check what the fuck you are saying when you white knight for somebody and make a complete idiot out of yourself.

You know this. You commented on this. So you deserve every word I write in this post for your scummy, vile attempt at slandering here.

When I make a post and then immediately get 5 whatsapp messages in my personal life shouting abuse at me about that post and because of that post...then somebody is coming after me.

And it really isn't like the OP at all.

Fucking idiot.

What I see is what I see, and I commented on what I saw because it disgusted me. I am, for better or worse, extremely intolerant of abusive behavior. This response was... very unnecessary, and also quite telling. My advice to you is to take a break from posting if you cannot control yourself enough to show respect to other users here. But if you need someone to talk to, my inbox is - as it says in the signature - always open.

[PhoenixAsh]

What I see is what I see, and I commented on what I saw because it disgusted me. I am, for better or worse, extremely intolerant of abusive behavior. This response was... very unnecessary, and also quite telling. My advice to you is to take a break from posting if you cannot control yourself enough to show respect to other users here. But if you need someone to talk to, my inbox is - as it says in the signature - always open.


it's really poor that as a mod, you have to insult people that didn't insult you with a single word. I've seen that pretty often coming from you. It's poor behavior


This is fucking priceless.

Don't pretend that that post was innocent at all and that you are some innocent victim here making a casual observation....and are now treated unfairly.

That post was disengenuous and one entire flame. And you know it. The entire and sole reason you wrote it and its entire content was accusing me of sexism and calling me a sexist accusing me of going after poor little Rosa simply because she is a woman instead of the fucked up shit she says and does.

Making one specific post with the specific intent of calling me out on shot you pretty much know is a complete fabrication and what is more...knowingly completely make a 180 on what actually happened and who the abuse came from...you ARE going to get a very strong and IMO extremely warranted reaction.

You are extremely intolerant of abusive behaviour? Yeah dude. You are a White Knight hypocrite. Serious.



I don't know why you're mentioning my whatsapp messages all the time. Obsessed much? Feel free to post them, this would be much better than just talk all the time about them, leaving it to people's imagination what the content might have been. After all, that's what you want people to think, right? Why else would you fill your posts with words like "in my personal life"? Where else are whatsapp messages supposed to arrive? In Narnia?

Really? You don't know? Because you shouted abuse at me you asshole and then pretended that you were some innocent victim here. You going after me personally on whatsapp is a big deal...not limiting your bullshit to the forum.

I would have posted the apps if it wasn't considered a breach of security culture....and you are well aware of that fact. So pretending they were something innocent...no they weren't. It fits nicely into your default attitude of playing the victim and your usual behaviour of you saying all kinds of shit...then being called out on it...then backtracking of how you actually meant something entirely different from what you were doing up untill that point. Now YOU sending me those apps is highly relevant because it directly affected the honesty of your statements and my willingness to accept your complete 180 as being genuine.


Make a note of the fact that I didn't mention those apps UNTILL after you made your fourth ad hominem in that thread and in the whatsapps.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/split-discussion-non-t190980/index.html?p=2796349#post2796349

What I did was make a statement. Then telling you you weren't actually doing what you claimed you were doing. There was no abuse whatsoever. The ONLY abuse came from you...and I called you out on the apps AFTER you made your x-th hominem at me.

So no...you do not get to play that "oww I am so treated unfairly" card.

You directed the course of the debate and you directed the honesty with how I interpreted your "defence" against pretty innocent statements I made.


Concerning FdlR: The female student never accused POC of anything. In fact, after the debate got heated, she said she was living in an area with rather immigrant population and that this was no attempt to get agreement from the political right. She was just trying to show what the average day as a woman looks like. But you're even trying to erase my experiences, those of my ladyfriends and plenty of other women in Germany that state the same things, namely an overproportional amount of harassment from MOC. This is just an observation, not saying anything about circumstances of socialization, just asking: Could this be somehow at least partly explained by culture? If no, what else are the factors? Let's not pretend that every culture has the same role of woman in their society. So it could be a factor, but it doesn't need to. Yet you come up with childish arguments like: Some white parliament guys molested someone. Wow. Slow clap

Maybe you misunderstood. I wasn't calling the female student out on anything. I do think she is partly responsible for the outcome of the actions of the company she worked with to edit the video...but that is not at all my intention. No. I was calling you out on your bullshit.

You didn't merely ask an innocent question.

What you actually did was (and you just admitted it here) specifically using a video of which you knew that it was heavilly editted and shot in circumstances which would automatically mean that there would be a higher number of MOC as evidence for the generalization of your personal experiences (without mentioning tyhat highly relevant fact in light of the statement you were making). And while there was nothing to diminish your personal experiences at all...what I was doing was calling you out on using as evidence a video of which you knew and were aware that the uneditted version of it actually showed NO ETHNIC distinction in frequency of the behaviour.

You doing this, knowing the history of the debate...knowing the issues with the video as it pertains to this specific topic...is actually fucking disegenuous regardless if the question is relevant and regardless of your experiences.

It is knowingly misrepresenting the facts in order to fit your personaly narrative. THAT is what I take issue with....and what should be taken issue with.

IF you had been unaware, which I know you were not, that would have been forgivable. But you ARE aware of this as is evident from your statement here.

What I also did was mention the experiences of WOC which showed that the experience is personal and perhaps dependend not on the ethnicity of the Men...but of the women. Which could be highly relevant.

And I mentioned the instance of Cecile, I think that French parliament member was called, because it happened days before the release of that video.

[consuming negativity]

This is fucking priceless.

Don't pretend that that post was innocent at all and that you are some innocent victim here making a casual observation....and are now treated unfairly.

That post was disengenuous and one entire flame. And you know it. The entire and sole reason you wrote it and its entire content was accusing me of sexism and calling me a sexist accusing me of going after poor little Rosa simply because she is a woman instead of the fucked up shit she says and does.

Making one specific post with the specific intent of calling me out on shot you pretty much know is a complete fabrication and what is more...knowingly completely make a 180 on what actually happened and who the abuse came from...you ARE going to get a very strong and IMO extremely warranted reaction.

You are extremely intolerant of abusive behaviour? Yeah dude. You are a White Knight hypocrite. Serious.

It is my opinion that if someone does not want to interact with you - be it on the street or on RevLeft - that that wish should be respected. Instead of respecting Rosa's desire to not interact with you on this site, I've seen you make many scathing, angry attacks on her posts, blaming your disrespectful behavior on a few whatsapp messages that she apparently sent you days ago. But the kicker is that your behavior would not be justified no matter what she sent to you, because what you're doing right now amounts to harassment and abuse of your moderation privileges. Privileges which include the inability to be ignored by users, which you have presumably because you are expected to remain respectful at all times.

But let me be clear here: there is no need for me to defend Rosa from your silliness; she is more than capable of articulating her own thoughts without any help from me or anyone else. My post was my own opinion about your behavior, which I happen to find extremely unbecoming of an adult. Perhaps if you do not want to be compared to people who continually attempt to rudely interact with someone who is clearly not interested in doing so, you should stop doing exactly what they are doing. Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own actions, shut the hell up, and stop acting like an asshole.

[The Feral Underclass]

This started the ball rolling and completely typifies your entire faux-shock, politically correct attitude to an innocent statement.

That's the best you could respond with? Two words? Even assuming I had said the most racist statement ever ... that was your response?

No rebuttal, no nothing ... two words ... shock ... horror ... "What did he say???!!!"




Yeah I did make that observation and what that subtly meant was I was making a correlation between the inherent biologically determined aggressive tendencies of black people and the sexism witnessed in the video. But you were too clever for me, you ripped off my mask.

Why did I do it? Well honestly it was because it just so happened that right before posting I had just got home from my local Nazi Party reading group were we had a good long chat about eugenics and I thought it would be a good laugh to come onto a Marxist forum and spout my racist theories.

Oh wait ... no I didn't. (I thought I better make that clear or my sarcasm might completely go over your head.)



The point I made in my opening was of what I perceived as massive cultural difference between UK and US attitudes and approaches to women. Do women get sexually harassed in public here in the UK? Definately, but I have never experienced that amount of persistent unwanted advances on a totally unremarkable woman in public in London where I find, in my day-to-day experience, people generally keep themselves to themselves.

So already I feel there is a cultural difference at play here.

Then, it happens that in that video, proportionally a larger number of the men seem to be black, why is that? Does it have anything to do with America's particular social problems revolving around race?

But wait ... why am I even noticing in the first place?

Seriously, what kind of question is that? What the hell is this 1984? Am I guilty of some thought crime? Damn my racist mind!!! Damn it to hell!!!




You mean biologically? Because that's what I obviously meant (sarcasm).

Or is it possible I was maybe curious about possible social implications of race relations in America determining how males of one race relate to females of another as opposed to the UK?




'If you were to say one culture seemed to do this or that sexist thing more while another race did another sexist thing more...'

What the hell does that mean? Maybe it's because it's 12am and I'm tired, but why have you jumped from 'culture' to 'race' in one sentence, and why is talking about 'race' better? Which is it, culture or race?

Yeah, I totally wanna 'blame them for some shit' those damn black people and their sexism!!! While I am at it, let me throw in my anger at their drug usage, poverty and committing of crimes. I'm all about the colour blame game. Damn non-whites.




Are you taking the piss? What is the practical purpose of observing someones skin colour? How about, off the top of my head, pretty much all discrimination studies that revolve around how people are disadvantage and oppressed because of their skin colour?

You want to honestly know why it jumped out at me, honestly, with no sarcasm ... because it did. That's why it jumped out at me. And you know what? When I want to point something out because I notice it I'm damn well going to, whether you, with your complete bullshit mock-offense attitude want me to or not.



Yeah it was, because if proportionally a larger number of those who harassed her where black or coloured as opposed to non-white that may have important sociological implications.



Are you f*cking kidding me, I can't thank someone for their post? I'm not even bothering responding to that crap. Coming out with something like that says alot about the type of person you are, and it's not a very nice one to put it mildly.



Seriously, what are you, some sort of thought police? People can and should express their opinions if they want, just because you don't agree with people here doesn't give you some sort of right to shut people down or completely belittle their ideas in a childish way.

Get over yourself.

And one last time, it's people like you with your completely bullshit overthetop 'every statement regarding race is racist' attitude that do the real harm to modern race relations. What you do is shut down all discussions revolving around race because 'it doesn't exist'. Guess what, it f*cking does exist and millions, if not billions of people suffer globally because it exists. And your phony concern and pretending your so advanced that you don't even see skin colour does f*ck all to help alleviate their problems and suffering.

If I see something, I'm saying it, whether you call me racist or not.

Honestly though give yourself a post-race pat on the back because your awesome ... slow clap* ... tell me pretty please how can I be more like you?

What an astounding display of bluster and nonsense.

Cry me a river you racist piece of shit.

[John Nada]

IRL when I'm hanging out with someone and they say shit like that video, I cringe and say,"Oh God, don't be a douche-bag.":glare:

However, when watching that video, I noticed they did seem to focus on POC. I don't know about other countries, but in the US, a settler-colonialist country, it's VERY segregated. Any white person walking around would draw attention, though this doesn't make this harassment right. There's also this problem of colorism, where people with lighter skin are valued over people with darker skin due to internalized racism. They could've filmed it in a white neighborhood and captured similar or worse misogyny, but chose one predominately with POC. It seems like they're trying to play in to that "white purity vs. black lust" narrative.

[Hrafn]

I hate everyone in this thread right now, by default.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is my opinion that if someone does not want to interact with you - be it on the street or on RevLeft - that that wish should be respected. Instead of respecting Rosa's desire to not interact with you on this site, I've seen you make many scathing, angry attacks on her posts, blaming your disrespectful behavior on a few whatsapp messages that she apparently sent you days ago. But the kicker is that your behavior would not be justified no matter what she sent to you, because what you're doing right now amounts to harassment and abuse of your moderation privileges. Privileges which include the inability to be ignored by users, which you have presumably because you are expected to remain respectful at all times.

But let me be clear here: there is no need for me to defend Rosa from your silliness; she is more than capable of articulating her own thoughts without any help from me or anyone else. My post was my own opinion about your behavior, which I happen to find extremely unbecoming of an adult. Perhaps if you do not want to be compared to people who continually attempt to rudely interact with someone who is clearly not interested in doing so, you should stop doing exactly what they are doing. Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own actions, shut the hell up, and stop acting like an asshole.

Yeah but your opinion is absolute shit and based on a willfull lie. Now aside from the fact that saying you do not want to interact on an open forum because you are called out on your bullshit is complete and utter bullshit...

Lets examine those "facts" you keep going on about....

Even IF it was relevant in the context. Lets examine WHEN she said she didn't want to interact. Which was AFTER my post in this thread calling her out on leaving out vital information which completely contradicted her use of the supposed "evidence" Let that be clear. AFTER I made my post in this thread.

YOU then accused me of sexism and following her around because she is a woman based on events that hadn't happened yet. Wauw. Sure...those are some serious precognition "facts" apparently.

Now...that still leaves the allegation of calling me out for sexism. Because for all your ramblings, even if they weren't complete and utter bullshit lies as I have just shown, you also accused me of calling Rosa out explicitly because she is a woman rather than the bullshit she litterally just admitted doing. Now do you have ANY evidence that even remotely substantiates these allegations? No. You don't.

So this is why you are not innocent here at all...and the ONLY reason and intention you had with your post was flaming, baiting and insulting.

So no. This garbage you post is a complete fabrication after the fact in order to white wash your obvious slander and ability to maintain your facade of how you are so fucking objective.

Don't make me laugh.

And tha doesn't even address the validity of the "request".

And yes. Abusing somebody outside the forum over posts they had made mere seconds before....and for the record....lets see what vile post I made against her to warrant this;


You are ancient


Anyways feminism is the idea of equAlity between the sexes. And that means women can behave however they feel without them being judged on their behavior because they are women.

Now...this statement should be a fucking no brainer for anybody on this forum. There is no contention here, no grounds for contention here.

Rosa maintained some position of "irony" in her forum reply...really? Because the whatsapps seconds after I made that first post filled with name calling and accusations belie that very fact.

Now...THIS is not relevant for you. Because you "call it like you see it" and have "zero tolerance for abusive behavior". What a load of horse shit.

So what vile things did I say after that? To waarant this?


Actually it is the essence of feminism and has nothing to do with liberalism. And as soon as a woman is judged not on the basis of behavior itself but on the behavior of her as a woman that principle and essence is violated and we are crossing over in the realm of gender roles and genderized behavior

And this....



You are pretending this is about individual choice...it is not. It is the idea of not being judged on behavior because you are a woman. And that is what both you and Meghan are conveniently ignoring. You are not addressing the structures but the behavior of women because they are women. And posting that article is deflecting that issue.

All against the background of her sending private abusive messages.

So no...I eventually called her out on that shit too...because she was playing the innocent victim.

This is the FIRST post I mention this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796427&postcount=38


Now...where is the abuse in that post? Right. Because no...that isn't relevant at all.

And to be honest...she completely admitted exactly what I said...right in her reply to my post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796433&postcount=40

So no. I am not following Rosa. Not because she is a woman. Not because she is a member. But I am replying to her or threads which I am free to reply on when somebody is either bullshitting or has an opinion I do not agree with.

Your hypocritical attemtps to make this into something which you know it is not is not only disengenuous but vile.

My arguments are relevant. In this thread and in the other. You may not agree with them...fine. We may have heated exchanges...but do NOT pretend that you are talking shit for shits sake because I didn't agree with you in the other debate.

[Fakeblock]

I did not at all imply that, I implied that you likely could count the amount of men of African descent you've met IRL on your left hand.

There are black people in Britain you know.

[PhoenixAsh]

But the problem is this.

There is no basis for the statement that MOC/POC do this more often. Whatever the reason or argument they use to justify it...the fact remains that there is an equal amount of harasssment based on ethnicity...meaning that there is no distinction in frequency.

The uneditted video Femme de la Rue actually showed this. This was the outcome of the debate that the video sparked about this very subject....and why it is relevant to not use that video in order to build on the theme...or at the very least mention this fact when you use it as such. Otherwise it is just dishonest and gives a skewed account of what was actually happening. I (we?) don't know if this editting happened with the NYC here as well.

Now...that doesn't negate individual experiences; it doesn't negate the seriousness of either video's. What it negates is the idea that there is an ethnic bias which explains this behaviour as being part of MOC/POC culture as opposed to white people who do this less frequent.

It doesn't even diminish the notion that there may be cultural and even ethnic differences that play a factor. It is very much likely that ethnicity does play a factor. It might however be the ethnicity of the woman rather than the ethnicity of the men....seeing as WOC seem to indicate that they experience the opposite of what White Women experience. Or it might be an inherrent socialized racial bias that makes acts from MOC/POC more recognizable or seem more threatening. Which is something which is quite common in white people.

The second reason why this is problematic is because it automatically assumes that MOC/POC transplant their culture and are not part of our culture...most MOC/POCs were however born and raised in this culture as well as their parents were (3rd gen). So it is highly assumptive of the fact that they are not acting out of our cultural biasses.

Now I don't see a difference between cultures...the same shit happens in the UK as it does in the US as it does in the Netherlands. The justification for it may differ and vary...but the frequency is the same cross culture.

[Red Son]

Felt genuinely uncomfortable watching this..especially when she was followed by that guy for over 5 minutes.
Don't get how guys can think this shit is ok.

[L.A.P.]

There are black people in Britain you know.



I'm aware. However, that's 3.3% in a nation of 64 million vs. 12.6% in a nation of 300 million

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm aware. However, that's 3.3% in a nation of 64 million vs. 12.6% in a nation of 300 million

Dude, I grew up in Handsworth in Birmingham. I was literally the only white kid in my kindergarten class. Some of my first words were fucking Jamaican Creole. I used to come home as a four year old dishing out Patois to my mother. That's not to mention the racism my family have had to deal with due to my aunt marrying a Trinidadian man. A third of my cousins, and there are many, are black, all of whom have married black people and had black children. I see first hand what racism is like every time I'm with them. My family have been dealing with racism since the fucking 70s. Us white kids of the family spent parts of our childhood living and growing up in Muslim and Afro-Caribbean communities. That's not to mention the fact I currently live in a working class Muslim community.

But ultimately who gives a fuck? Even if I didn't have in-depth experience of the Caribbean and Muslim communities in the UK or had Afro-Caribbean blood relatives or seen first hand the racism my family have to endure, what difference does that make to anything? Are you really arguing that because the US has more black people in it, that somehow makes you and other Americans experts? That we in the UK don't really know what black people are like?

You're talking bullshit mate. Get a grip.

[L.A.P.]

Dude, I grew up in Handsworth in Birmingham. I was literally the only white kid in my kindergarten class. Some of my first words were fucking Jamaican Creole. I used to come home as a four year old dishing out Patois to my mother. That's not to mention the racism my family have had to deal with due to my aunt marrying a Trinidadian man. A third of my cousins, and there are many, are black, all of whom have married black people and had black children. I see first hand what racism is like every time I'm with them. My family have been dealing with racism since the fucking 70s. Us white kids of the family spent parts of our childhood living and growing up in Muslim and Afro-Caribbean communities. That's not to mention the fact I currently live in a working class Muslim community.

But ultimately who gives a fuck? Even if I didn't have in-depth experience of the Caribbean and Muslim communities in the UK or had Afro-Caribbean blood relatives or seen first hand the racism my family have to endure, what difference does that make to anything? Are you really arguing that because the US has more black people in it, that somehow makes you and other Americans experts? That we in the UK don't really know what black people are like?

You're talking bullshit mate. Get a grip.

My ultimate point is that African-American men are socialized into a specific kind of masculinity. I was prob. too quick to try to fill this 'identity' with static 'positive contents', as I think it's a 'negative' reflection of white patriarchy. Notice, as shown in an earlier post in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796998&postcount=55), there were, in fact, a good deal of white men who harassed this woman. But they cowardly did it in passing or off camera, while everyone else had no problem saying it to her face. I don't think it is anything inherent to ethnicity or ancestral culture, since, unlike other non-white groups in the US, African-Americans were completely cut off from their sense of cultural origin. I point this in order to counter the potential claim that; just because there may have been a tendency for the camera getting non-white men more openly harassing the woman, its because of something historically salient, not ethnically-inherent.

here's some quotes by bell hooks to show where I'm getting at:

“Within neo-colonial white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the black male body continues to be perceived as an embodiment of bestial, violent, penis-as-weapon hypermasculine assertion. Psychohistories of white racism have always called attention to the tension between the construction of black male body as danger and the underlying eroticization that always then imagines that body as a location for transgressive pleasure.."

“Black males who refuse categorization are rare, for the price of visibility in the contemporary world of white supremacy is that black identity be defined in relation to the stereotype whether by embodying it or seeking to be other than it…Negative stereotypes about the nature of black masculinity continue to overdetermine the identities black males are allowed to fashion for themselves."

[Creative Destruction]

There is definite intersectionality between racism and sexism. I'm sure that if this woman had walked through a neighborhood that was dominantly white she might be met with the same responses, though it's hard to say. Could be something to do with race, but not in any sort of "black people are more sexist inherently" type of way.

It's a tough call, maybe someone who knows more on the matter will drop in

It's not a "tough call" or "hard to say." This shit happened all the time to my friends in Austin, a town which is mostly lily white.

[The Feral Underclass]

My ultimate point is that African-American men are socialized into a specific kind of masculinity. I was prob. too quick to try to fill this 'identity' with static 'positive contents', as I think it's a 'negative' reflection of white patriarchy. Notice, as shown in an earlier post in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796998&postcount=55), there were, in fact, a good deal of white men who harassed this woman. But they cowardly did it in passing or off camera, while everyone else had no problem saying it to her face. I don't think it is anything inherent to ethnicity or ancestral culture, since, unlike other non-white groups in the US, African-Americans were completely cut off from their sense of cultural origin. I point this in order to counter the potential claim that; just because there may have been a tendency for the camera getting non-white men more openly harassing the woman, its because of something historically salient, not ethnically-inherent.

here's some quotes by bell hooks to show where I'm getting at:

“Within neo-colonial white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the black male body continues to be perceived as an embodiment of bestial, violent, penis-as-weapon hypermasculine assertion. Psychohistories of white racism have always called attention to the tension between the construction of black male body as danger and the underlying eroticization that always then imagines that body as a location for transgressive pleasure.."

“Black males who refuse categorization are rare, for the price of visibility in the contemporary world of white supremacy is that black identity be defined in relation to the stereotype whether by embodying it or seeking to be other than it…Negative stereotypes about the nature of black masculinity continue to overdetermine the identities black males are allowed to fashion for themselves."

My criticism has not been because I am unclear about the intellectualisation of the observation. My criticism has been because I don't understand why the observation was made in the first place.

I mean, essentially what you're saying is that some black men harass women in a certain way because of XYZ and white men harass women in a different way because XYZ. Even if that's true, which I don't accept it is, who cares? What would be the motivation for making that distinction?

So far the response to that question has been, "well because I did" or "because I wanted to have a discussion" or "because it's interesting"...Okay, but why? Why is it interesting? Why did the observation get made? Why is it relevant to a discussion about street harassment against women to a) point out that the people in the video were not white and b) that non-white men harass women in a specific way that some of you assert isn't how white men do it?...What the absolute fuck is going on here?

I find this whole tangent to be incredibly dubious.

[consuming negativity]

Yeah but your opinion is absolute shit and based on a willfull lie. Now aside from the fact that saying you do not want to interact on an open forum because you are called out on your bullshit is complete and utter bullshit...

Lets examine those "facts" you keep going on about....

Even IF it was relevant in the context. Lets examine WHEN she said she didn't want to interact. Which was AFTER my post in this thread calling her out on leaving out vital information which completely contradicted her use of the supposed "evidence" Let that be clear. AFTER I made my post in this thread.

Really now?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796655&postcount=384

Now shut your fucking mouth and listen to me, because I won't repeat this again. Requests for you to stop interacting with someone are not subjected to whether or not you think they are valid. ALL requests for you to leave someone alone are valid, even if no reason is given at all. You apparently have absolutely no respect for her or the boundaries she sets, and yeah, that really, really fucking pisses me off. Extremely so. You are being abusive as fuck, not just to her but to me now as well, and as I said, I have a very low tolerance for this sort of behavior. Neither of us are deserving of your bullshit in any way, shape, or form, and so I'm not going to reply to you again and give you any more excuses than you've already made to litter these forums with your toxic garbage. In the nicest way I can think to say it right now, fuck off before your big mouth digs you into a hole that you can't climb your way back out of.

[Quail]

I haven't had time to more than skim-read this thread, but I have to say that PhoenixAsh, you are definitely out of line with the flaming and possibly out of line if Rosa told you to leave her alone and you continued to aggressively respond to her posts (I will have to look into the latter charge properly later).

Consider this post a warning.

[PhoenixAsh]

Really now?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796655&postcount=384

Now shut your fucking mouth and listen to me, because I won't repeat this again. Requests for you to stop interacting with someone are not subjected to whether or not you think they are valid. ALL requests for you to leave someone alone are valid, even if no reason is given at all. You apparently have absolutely no respect for her or the boundaries she sets, and yeah, that really, really fucking pisses me off. Extremely so. You are being abusive as fuck, not just to her but to me now as well, and as I said, I have a very low tolerance for this sort of behavior. Neither of us are deserving of your bullshit in any way, shape, or form, and so I'm not going to reply to you again and give you any more excuses than you've already made to litter these forums with your toxic garbage. In the nicest way I can think to say it right now, fuck off before your big mouth digs you into a hole that you can't climb your way back out of.


You are entirely deserving of everything you get in here for your disengenuous, two faced, double standard and hypocrtical lies and slander.

You have already shown how dishonest and disengenuous your little lie about how you are soooo fucking intolerant of abuse you are. Had you actually had some honest bone in your fucking body you would have called the abusive party out when that happened. You didn't. In fact...you completely dismissed it. And then dismissed it again as irrelevent. You are nothing more than a white knight acting out of some male protective instinct against, what you perceive as, a poor little woman...and you try to pass it off as "being intolerant of abusive behaviour"...which, by the way, hasn't actually happened. At no point whatsoever have I been abusive to her at all.

What you do here is redefining "abusive" as me replying to a thread in a relevant matter in which somebody is taking a dubious position and calling them out on it. THAT is your entire reason for calling me out as a sexist and accusing me of going after Rosa because she is a woman...rather than because of the bullshit she claims with relevant statements.

And it is very fucking relevant if somebody claims a racialized and ethnic element to sexism and then uses a video which they are very well aware of was shot in a environment where there were disproportionally more POC, was also heavilly editted to the extend that almost all white people were "somehow" cut out of the film, and in uneditted version actually show the complete opposite of what it is now used as evidence for.

That is fucking relevant. And not abusive.

What is more...she is aware that the video she mentions was problematic to use in such a way and fashion not only because of all that but also because that very same video has been the center of a heated debate and has been pounched upon by the far right to show inherrent sexism in non-white people and has been heavilly used in order to villify POC. But not only that...the outcome of that debate was that the uneditted version actually shows the opposite of that. Now...I stopped short of actually calling her out for racism. But she should have mentioned the facts above.

And like she stated herself...she was completely aware of all this.

Again...that is fucking relevant for the debate.

Because it is incredibly suspicious when somebody uses problematic evidence in a way the far right used that evidence while full well knowing that the evidence was actually tampered and skewed...and was in uneditted version showing the exact opposite.


So no. I won't shut my fucking mouth when somebody does that.

That is aside from the fact that on an open discussion forum there is no such thing as "you can't interact with me". And that post you quote:

1). That was not a request for me to leave her alone
2). It was made in a random unrelated thread
3). It wasn't directed at me in a way that would ensure I read it
4). It was an asinine ad hominem the result of a course of action Rosa set herself by being the actual abusive party where she was going over from a debate on a forum to actual RL harassment.

...and then claimed she somehow was the victim there. And not for the first time. And you fell for that.


The one who actually shits up the debate and belies the fact that Rosa apparently can speak for her self as you claim...is you. Rosa can indeed do that. There was no need for your interference, no request for your interference, and you were fully aware that it would serve no other reason than to actually aggravate the situation while fully knowing that nothing you said here actually is true in any way shape or form....and that is your sole motivation...which you package in obvious lies in order to find some moral high ground for your white knighting.


Now...if YOU want to talk about your closset sexism and white knighting behaviour...I would like to say my door is always open. But no. I think you are too far gone for me actually to waste time on your sorry ass.

[Loony Le Fist]

Really now?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2796655&postcount=384

Now shut your fucking mouth and listen to me, because I won't repeat this again. Requests for you to stop interacting with someone are not subjected to whether or not you think they are valid. ALL requests for you to leave someone alone are valid, even if no reason is given at all. You apparently have absolutely no respect for her or the boundaries she sets, and yeah, that really, really fucking pisses me off. Extremely so. You are being abusive as fuck, not just to her but to me now as well, and as I said, I have a very low tolerance for this sort of behavior. Neither of us are deserving of your bullshit in any way, shape, or form, and so I'm not going to reply to you again and give you any more excuses than you've already made to litter these forums with your toxic garbage. In the nicest way I can think to say it right now, fuck off before your big mouth digs you into a hole that you can't climb your way back out of.

Well, now I understand why Rosa left once already.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, now I understand why Rosa left once already.

No...you really don't. Rosa left before because she was attacked by another user on something...in a facebook thread. The ironic thing was that I was the reason she came back because I asked her to....because I am such an abusive asshole. And we were actually...dare I say friends...untill the discussion in the split off thread and her whatsapp messages.

[QueerVanguard]

I watched this piece of crap video a couple of days ago and instantly recognized it for the anti-POC piece of shit propaganda that it is. Bourgeois "Feminists" allying with racists sadly isn't anything new and we sure as hell shouldn't be promoting their shit on our websites.

[Rosa Partizan]

No, it was because of this "abortion after birth"-discussion with you, so don't you distort that again. I don't blame you for that, though. I didn't read any of your posts, because I probably would feel urged to answer or to justify or something, but I really DON'T WANT and I ask you again kindly to ignore my posts, starting from NOW. Don't even answer to this, because I have nothing to say to you that could benefit one of us.

[PhoenixAsh]

Right. No. Not going to do that if you lie.

So after this reply...fine.

You left because of the Facebook thread (see my profile convo with Biazed). You came back because I asked you via him.

The post-abortion debate was indeed what made you super pissed at me*...and was when you called me on the phone ...I explained to you why I posted it...we decided we have a lot of unintentional misunderstanding going on...and we agreed to, when one of us said something we perceived as an attack or didn't understand or was triggering in the future, to call each other first to avoid unpleasentness rather than immediately start jumping on it.

You obviously forgot about that. And what you did was extremely hostile, hurtful, confusing...and completely undeserved. Don't pretend it to be otherwise and don't pretend you are some victim here...you know you were in the wrong here.

Now...feel free to continue with your life.


* (And the post-abortion article wasn't the only reason at that time when you were considering if you would stay. You specifically referred to the edgyness of the necrophilia thread and the canibalism thread etc.)

[Rosa Partizan]

I went away for a week while after this abortion debate, I was posting like 3 times in two months and erased everything from my profile and I'm pretty sure that loony was referring to this. You deliberately pissed me off with that WOYM provocation and you know why and I'm sick of you posting non-revleft-related stuff here all the time. Be honest about everything instead of "hinting" at stuff or stfu. This is all getting really disgusting and somehow even sad that you as a mod wouldn't be able to communicate without insulting users or dragging non-board related stuff in this discussion, not for the first time. Put me on your ignore list and everything's gonna be super fine. Don't expect any further post referring to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

No one gives a fuck about your twos bullshit. Can you both just shut the fuck up and stop using threads as your personal drama space? None of this bullshit has anything to do with this topic and frankly, you're both getting incredibly boring.

Quail has already warned Phoenix not to interact with you, if he continues to do so then I'm sure the admins will take further action, but if you don't want to talk to him, Roza, don't respond to his posts.

This is ridiculous.

[PhoenixAsh]

No one gives a fuck about your twos bullshit. Can you both just shut the fuck up and stop using threads as your personal drama space? None of this bullshit has anything to do with this topic and frankly, you're both getting incredibly boring.

Quail has already warned Phoenix not to interact with you, if he continues to do so then I'm sure the admins will take further action, but if you don't want to talk to him, Roza, don't respond to his posts.

This is ridiculous.

I have received no such warning.

Aha.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't know why you're getting at me because of this. I asked him several times to ignore me.

Anyway, I was having a discussion at work about this and my female colleagues didn't understand what I meant when saying power structures, because they consider power as an individualist thing, like "but how does this specific guy has power over me?" I somehow tried to explain it to them by saying how gendered this phenomenon would be and how women would be facing completely other fears than guys when being verbally harassed, but it's really difficult when people haven't dealt with this approach so far.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know why you're getting at me because of this. I asked him several times to ignore me.

Yet you keep responding to him...

[BIXX]

Dude, Rosa and phoenix, can you please stop fighting? I don't mean for the benefit of the thread or revleft or whatever because I like you guys and you guys seemed to be friends before and maybe its because I've been very emotional the past couple of days but its making me very sad to see you two at each others throats like this.

[Loony Le Fist]

Anyway, I was having a discussion at work about this and my female colleagues didn't understand what I meant when saying power structures, because they consider power as an individualist thing, like "but how does this specific guy has power over me?" I somehow tried to explain it to them by saying how gendered this phenomenon would be and how women would be facing completely other fears than guys when being verbally harassed, but it's really difficult when people haven't dealt with this approach so far.

I get this a lot too. It's not a specific guy that has power over any specific woman. It's a social structure that subjugates women turning them into objects to be acquired for sex and encourages single dimensional men who are sex seeking automatons. It has power over us all, but it is particularly cruel to women. It also screws up social interactions because men feel pressure to get laid and women feel intimidated instead of just being counterparties involved in a conversation.

[Loony Le Fist]

The way threads like these develop always make me sick to my stomach goes to demonstrate the progress we need to make here. Even among leftists. :(

[Loony Le Fist]

Yet you keep responding to him...

In the immortal words of Captain America.

Son, just don't.


Son, just don't

[PhoenixAsh]

@ Looney,

While I agree with you on general principle. The irony is that this is the image that is actively and consciously pushed here and why I called this whole thing disengenuous and vile. Now your assessment is exactly the opposite of how this entire thing went down...it it so ironic that it almost becomes funny to the point where you do not even know. This is the default setting here...so there is no defence for me unless I either out myself, which I am not willing or comfortable to do and I ever did to four people in my life...and partially to Rosa (which is indicative of the level of trust I thought there was), or I need to post the evidence which I am not allowed to do.

So in those exact same immortal words: just don't

[Loony Le Fist]

@ Looney,

While I agree with you on general principle. The irony is that this is the image that is actively and consciously pushed here and why I called this whole thing disengenuous and vile. Now your assessment is exactly the opposite of how this entire thing went down...it it so ironic that it almost becomes funny to the point where you do not even know. This is the default setting here...so there is no defence for me unless I either out myself, which I am not willing or comfortable to do and I ever did to four people in my life...and partially to Rosa (which is indicative of the level of trust I thought there was), or I need to post the evidence which I am not allowed to do.

So in those exact same immortal words: just don't

Aight son. :laugh:

[The Disillusionist]

I think your problem here stems from trying to understand Marx from a mechanicalist view, as if he had to break down everything to the sum of its parts specifically to be correct (it's also a gross oversimplification to state that he somehow only viewed history as consisting of three modes of production, excluding primitive communism and the slave states of old, and the room he gave feudalism due to the fact that it encompassed such a wide spectrum of social relations across the world.

Marx came to the correct conclusion about the US, no need to take in idealist notions of some sort of religious work ethic superseding material conditions. Hell, the US was the biggest hotbed for revolutionary organizations and activity in the world, arguably, for many years. There's a reason we had the red scare while other countries were experiencing surges in right-wing movements.


Any of Marx's ideas can be immediately confirmed just by looking at history, even a crude reductionist understanding of it, I would say.

I don't know what's going on in the rest of this thread, all I'm really reading is a lot of angry swearing and not a whole lot of anybody really saying anything. But anyway, this conversation, our conversation, like many social theory conversations, seems to be boiling down to the fact that we think differently, and so we are probably arguing past each other at this point. But, I will make a few arguments.

1. I do think that a theory has to have some kind of mechanicalistic foundation that can be broken down to explain a wide variety of phenomena at many different scales and in many different aspects of society. I don't see Marxism as meeting this criteria, because of its broad but one-dimensional focus on material and economy that fails to explain many other aspects of society, even though it does explain some aspects of economic change and development very well (though still not in a manner that I would call scientifically quantifiable).

2. The Protestant work ethic is hardly a mere idealistic notion, it was one of the many ideological foundations of US culture, and it's influence can be traced ever bit as clearly as Marx's material conditions can. It doesn't explain everything, but it has to be considered in order to reach a full understand of US culture, just like materialism.

3. The First Red Scare had SOME basis in the anarchist movement and the worker's rights movement, which were great, and made some real progress, but it was primarily the result of political fearmonging and conservative reactionism. Ironically, it was the First Red Scare itself that gave legitimacy to movements that were really quite small.

The Second Red Scare in the US was an absolute joke. Communism has never had a really significant following in the US, and the Second Red Scare was, again, a reactionist response to fearmongering anti-Soviet propaganda. It was this polarized cultural mindset that US politicians took advantage of in order to purge the government of political thinkers they didn't like, kind of like the Stalinist purges but without quite as much killing.

Both of the Red Scares were primarily the result of politicians manipulating old Protestant ideals to control the public, they actually had very little to do with revolution, or leftism of any kind.

[Illegalitarian]

1. I do think that a theory has to have some kind of mechanicalistic foundation that can be broken down to explain a wide variety of phenomena at many different scales and in many different aspects of society. I don't see Marxism as meeting this criteria, because of its broad but one-dimensional focus on material and economy that fails to explain many other aspects of society, even though it does explain some aspects of economic change and development very well (though still not in a manner that I would call scientifically quantifiable).

That's fine, if you're looking for hand-holding (not to sound paternalistic i just can't think of a better term), you won't find it in Marxism, rather, it's a methodology that allows you to look at some of the smaller parts and see that the wider theories are correct, which always leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling. The old man wasn't a prophet, but, as he said, nothing human was foreign to him.



2. The Protestant work ethic is hardly a mere idealistic notion, it was one of the many ideological foundations of US culture, and it's influence can be traced ever bit as clearly as Marx's material conditions can. It doesn't explain everything, but it has to be considered in order to reach a full understand of US culture, just like materialism.


historical materialism is a methodology, not ideology, and it clearly shows us that protestantism wasn't the material reason for such ethics, as much as it was but another aspect of them.


3. The First Red Scare had SOME basis in the anarchist movement and the worker's rights movement, which were great, and made some real progress, but it was primarily the result of political fearmonging and conservative reactionism. Ironically, it was the First Red Scare itself that gave legitimacy to movements that were really quite small.





The Second Red Scare in the US was an absolute joke. Communism has never had a really significant following in the US, and the Second Red Scare was, again, a reactionist response to fearmongering anti-Soviet propaganda. It was this polarized cultural mindset that US politicians took advantage of in order to purge the government of political thinkers they didn't like, kind of like the Stalinist purges but without quite as much killing.



Both of the Red Scares were primarily the result of politicians manipulating old Protestant ideals to control the public, they actually had very little to do with revolution, or leftism of any kind.

There was a significant amount or radicalization among trade unions and metropolitan areas, however (Louisiana has a communist governor, even lmfao), which instigated the terror in each instance in order to help keep a cultural and ideological hegemony of American exceptionalism. It is the reason that America tried to force its own cultural revolution upon its populace in the 50's.

[The Disillusionist]

That's fine, if you're looking for hand-holding (not to sound paternalistic i just can't think of a better term), you won't find it in Marxism, rather, it's a methodology that allows you to look at some of the smaller parts and see that the wider theories are correct, which always leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling. The old man wasn't a prophet, but, as he said, nothing human was foreign to him.

It's not that I'm looking for a theoretical framework to do my thinking for me, that's why I don't believe in pegging myself completely to any one theory, but I'm looking for a system or an amalgamation of systems that can serve as a framework for testable hypothesis generation and real analysis in as many aspects of culture as possible, many of which Marxism has no power to explain.

Really, the reason that Marxism gives you a warm fuzzy feeling is because you treat it like a religion, believing it more on faith than on hard fact, which prevents you from seeing a broader picture. It's like the Creationists who look at tree leaves and things like that, and see in them evidence for intelligent design. Sure, under that theoretical framework they can be used as evidence for the premises of that same framework, but under a better framework they can be seen in a much clearer, more understandable light.



historical materialism is a methodology, not ideology, and it clearly shows us that protestantism wasn't the material reason for such ethics, as much as it was but another aspect of them.

How does it show that? It doesn't have the analytical foundation to show that in any real way, it can only assert that in reference to its larger claims. Marxists can SAY that Protestantism was somehow the result of changing materialist conditions in Europe during the time, but they have no way of proving that, and Protestantism can just as easily be linked to many other things as well, just as strongly. Most likely it was a combination of factors, as most things tend to be.

Also, I know that ideology has become a bit of a dirty word among some leftists, but the Google definition of the word is simply: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." I would definitely call Marxism, under that definition, an ideology. A methodology is a set of rules that define, obviously, methods. Since Marxism doesn't really have any concrete methods, I find it hard to agree that it could be called a methodology. A methodology would be like the Scientific Method.



There was a significant amount or radicalization among trade unions and metropolitan areas, however (Louisiana has a communist governor, even lmfao), which instigated the terror in each instance in order to help keep a cultural and ideological hegemony of American exceptionalism. It is the reason that America tried to force its own cultural revolution upon its populace in the 50's.

The 50's were a really complicated time, and I don't think that any one approach can entirely explain every aspect of that era, but I do believe you are right that American did attempt to force its own cultural revolution, probably as a combination of domestic influences and burgeoning competition with the Soviet Union.

[Illegalitarian]

It's not that I'm looking for a theoretical framework to do my thinking for me, that's why I don't believe in pegging myself completely to any one theory, but I'm looking for a system or an amalgamation of systems that can serve as a framework for testable hypothesis generation and real analysis in as many aspects of culture as possible, many of which Marxism has no power to explain.

Yeah, I think we're simply at an impasse on this one, Marxism explains all that it sets out to perfectly as far as I can tell, which is all that matters in the context of a proper societal analysis. The fact's are there, they're just not mechanicalist.





How does it show that? It doesn't have the analytical foundation to show that in any real way, it can only assert that in reference to its larger claims. Marxists can SAY that Protestantism was somehow the result of changing materialist conditions in Europe during the time, but they have no way of proving that, and Protestantism can just as easily be linked to many other things as well, just as strongly. Most likely it was a combination of factors, as most things tend to be.


Material conditions determine everything, that's kind of the base and any assertion contrary to that is the assertion that needs to bare the proof. That's how the metaphysical works, it's a non-material concept and as such, the burden of proof falls there.


Also, I know that ideology has become a bit of a dirty word among some leftists, but the Google definition of the word is simply: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." I would definitely call Marxism, under that definition, an ideology. A methodology is a set of rules that define, obviously, methods. Since Marxism doesn't really have any concrete methods, I find it hard to agree that it could be called a methodology. A methodology would be like the Scientific Method.


Marxism is a social theory, the methodology is historical materialism, which is based in science.

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, I think we're simply at an impasse on this one, Marxism explains all that it sets out to perfectly as far as I can tell, which is all that matters in the context of a proper societal analysis. The fact's are there, they're just not mechanicalist.

Material conditions determine everything, that's kind of the base and any assertion contrary to that is the assertion that needs to bare the proof. That's how the metaphysical works, it's a non-material concept and as such, the burden of proof falls there.


That's an issue, I think, that materialist theory validates itself by not considering outside perspectives. But, you're right, this isn't really going anywhere, it's a matter of how the issue is approached. It was nice chatting with you. :)

[John Nada]

Actress Shoshana B. Roberts of that video did an interview.
Actress Shoshana B. Roberts volunteered to participate in the now-viral video collaboration between anti-street harassment organization Hollaback and Rob Bliss Creative because she wanted to start a dialogue about catcalling — and start a dialogue she did. The video, which (at the time of writing) has been viewed over 17 million times, shows clips of Roberts walking through Manhattan for 10 hours, during which time she received more than 100 catcalls. In an interview with the hosts of CNN’s “New Day”, the actress said the unsolicited comments brought back memories of her past sexual assault.

“It is a typical day, and it doesn’t even illustrate everything that happens,” Roberts said. “It doesn’t show the times in the past that … my side has been squeezed. It brings up memories in my past, too. I’ve experienced sexual assault, unfortunately, in my past.”

Roberts went on to cite a recent incident involving a woman who was slashed with a knife for refusing to give a man her phone number, adding that such charged acts of violence make her especially vigilant on the street. And, in reference to the man who followed alongside her for five minutes after she rebuffed his verbal advances, Roberts said she was terrified.

“I had to keep remembering that I wanted to start a dialogue,” she said. “I was scared out of my mind. … I was reliving past experiences of sexual assault in my mind during those ten hours. It was bringing up these awful memories.” Source: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/woman_in_catcalling_video_tells_cnn_i_was_reliving _past_experiences_of_sexual_assault/

[The Feral Underclass]

Actress Shoshana B. Roberts of that video did an interview. Source: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/woman_in_catcalling_video_tells_cnn_i_was_reliving _past_experiences_of_sexual_assault/

It's all just so fucking awful. There was a situation in London recently at the Notting Hill Carnival where a woman was punched in the face for telling a man to stop touching her arse...It's just insane.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a crazy video that is relevant to this discussion.

-HI4DC18wCg

[Comrade Hadrian]

I'm just throwing this out there, but how many of the men who harassed her were non-white

Saw this on the mainstream news. It's almost as if the purpose of the video is to utilize a political dog-whistle to two very different audiences at the same time. My guess is more critical observers of the video will determine it is probably mostly fake (guys were paid actors).

[Rosa Partizan]

a friend of mine was sharing this vid (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/8aeb78deb2/10-hours-of-walking-in-nyc-as-a-man) (parody, obviously) on fb. Some guy posted the most stupid, ignorant, mansplaining stuff, but the best thing was: Throwing a ball at a guy is worse than "throwing" words at a woman, because there are so many guys that are not into sports and they get peer pressured into playing football.

What - the - actual - fuck.

That reminded me of this quote "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will rape/kill them".

[PhoenixAsh]

and then there is this:
http://jezebel.com/cnn-guest-women-wouldn-t-care-about-harassment-if-catc-1653826627

guy blaming women for not building mens self esteem by not catcaling back.

[Lily Briscoe]

-HI4DC18wCg
I like how you can tell exactly what that guy's opinions are gonna be before you even hit 'play' on the video.

[Loony Le Fist]

Steven Santagati the definition of douchenozzle. :laugh:

He fails miserably at distinguishing between approaches, compliments and catcalls. People in general like to be complimented. However, you don't shout a compliment at someone as they are walking by; it makes the situation extremely uncomfortable. Furthermore, a catcall is by no means complimentary. On the contrary, they are disgusting and objectifying. Catcalls are harassment and textbook examples of objectification. I mean does he really think that women are supposed to feel complimented by that behaviour?

That dude knows jackshit about social calibration, women, and people in general. :laugh:

[Loony Le Fist]

That reminded me of this quote "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will rape/kill them".

^ This.

Another logic bomb coming straight from the brain of Rosa. :laugh:

Awesome quote!

[Yazman]

Because being observant of people's skin tones makes you racist? Where the hell is the logic in that?

D-A-C wasn't implying that the POC in the video harassing the woman were doing so because of their biological nature. He was using that observation to open up the discussion on how different cultures and sub-cultures differ in how they interact and portray women.

This would make sense if he was actually talking about cultures & sub-cultures, but he specifically said white people and non-white people. "White" is not a culture or subculture, and neither is "non-white". Seems like subtle racism, to me.

[Rad]

delete, (posted this as new thread)

[Rosa Partizan]

reading this made me feel really uncomfortable


http://www.xojane.com/sex/i-confronted-every-man-who-catcalled-me?upw&utm_content=buffer6f78f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[FarewellToKings]

A disturbing and eye-opening video. Hopefully this will shut up the people who claim that women who complain about street harassment need to "learn to take a compliment".

[Bala Perdida]

A disturbing and eye-opening video. Hopefully this will shut up the people who claim that women who complain about street harassment need to "learn to take a compliment".
Nah. The link Rosa provided above would do a better job. In my brain cell killing prank video youtube binge I stumbled on a douche-bag that made a retaliation video and denied that was harassment.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Rosa's article is interesting but with only three incidents questioned it's hard to draw conclusions, although I would terrified to do even one so this lady deserves some credit. My own personal opinion is that most cat-calling is akin to people thinking out loud, which only adds to the selfishness at work. The fact that all three groups seemed surprised and even uncomfortable with her responding kind of backs that up but like I said three incidents isnt much to gauge. The asshole that yelled at her sounds like a real winner, who gets up in a random strangers face like that.

[FarewellToKings]

Nah. The link Rosa provided above would do a better job. In my brain cell killing prank video youtube binge I stumbled on a douche-bag that made a retaliation video and denied that was harassment.
Unfortunately, people like him would probably make the same claim about Rosa's article, or deny that it ever happened. You just can't get through to some people.

[RedWorker]

Anti-Semitic street harassment in France

AltyhmrIFgo

The "Long live Palestine" in this context is bad and probably also has anti-Semitism behind it. It would be like saying "fuck Hitler" when saying a German person, which additionally takes place in a context in which there is structural xenophobia against a group. This is independent of the necessity of solidarity with Palestine and the obvious racism and ethnic nationalism with denial of basic human rights to certain groups that exists in Israel and in the policies used and operations conducted by that state.