Feminism and Anarchism

[Module]

Assuming Invariance's post is in response to mine, I won't make a full reply to that, but I was not intending, in my post, to say that you have to 'consent' before it's right for somebody else to look at you, that was specifically in response to DAB's question of whether or not he has to consent to look at somebody in a certain way.
My post was trying to say that simply because one could say a lack of 'consent' is not specifically important in giving somebody unwanted attention does not mean that how you look at somebody else is meaningless, to the significance of how you see that person, and therefore what you see as acceptable limits to how you interact with that person, and to how it makes that person feel, and that explicit consent is not the deciding factor for whether or not particular attitudes or actions are justifiable, or irrelevant. To say that the way you look at somebody is an innocent, isolated little action ignores the fact that even looking at somebody is a form of communication, and one expression of the way in which you find it acceptable to treat other people.
Personal space is most certainly an important factor in social exchanges, and the reasons why a group of men staring and making comments about you isn't 'chauvinistic' because it's 'wrong' and it isn't 'wrong' because it's 'misogynistic'. The reason why it is misogynistic is because there is no element of recipriocity, but then why is the element of recipriocity relevant in that particular circumstance? Because of the lack of acknowledgement (or in many cases a conscious and purposeful invasion) of personal space.
The issue, I am sure, is not a matter of somebody simply 'checking you out'. Obviously that happens all the time; there is an obvious difference between checking somebody out and staring at them, making comments about them, etc. when it's obvious they don't want you to, or not caring about whether or not they want you to.
Of course you can't 'police' something like that. Nobody's saying you can, or that it would be desirable to do so.
Thoughts, words, actions by individuals are examples of wider social attitudes that are worth stopping, however, because they are sexist, or racist, or homophobic, or whatever; you can't force an individual to change their attitudes, but they're certainly worth talking about, at the very least.

[Invariance]

To say that the way you look at somebody is an innocent, isolated little action ignores the fact that even looking at somebody is a form of communication, and one expression of the way in which you find it acceptable to treat other people.

Actually, I would generally agree with this. How you treat people, why you treat them the way you do isn't isolated from society. However, statements like:

Originally posted by War Cry
But men still wanna fuck me because I'm "conventionally attractive" via beauty standards created by pornography & the media.

which reduce sexual attraction to beauty standards created by 'pornography and the media' present just as isolated and unmaterialistic view of sexual objectifiaction (i.e. reducing them to the scapegoats of the media and pornography) than the idea that people's actions are, as you say, 'isolated.' The media may very well create certain fashions or perpetuate others, but they don't come from nowhere either. Nor can we simply reduce a man's preferences to those dominating society; personal preference can't be ignored or written off in a reductionist manner. It's a much more complex affair.

Thoughts, words, actions by individuals are examples of wider social attitudes that are worth stopping, however, because they are sexist, or racist, or homophobic, or whatever; you can't force an individual to change their attitudes, but they're certainly worth talking about, at the very least.

I've never said otherwise.

Personal space is most certainly an important factor in social exchanges, and the reasons why a group of men staring and making comments about you isn't 'chauvinistic' because it's 'wrong' and it isn't 'wrong' because it's 'misogynistic'.

This sentence makes no sense, and I've read it several times.

Making chauvinistic statements is wrong. Making misogynistic statements is wrong. By virtue of how we use the words 'chauvinistic', 'misogynistic' we are condemning something. Sorry if I missed your point.

The reason why it is misogynistic is because there is no element of recipriocity, but then why is the element of recipriocity relevant in that particular circumstance?

In this particular circumstance recipriocity matters because that is what is integral to flirting; flirting is acceptable (hell, encouraged) when the person you're flirting with, well, has a chance with you. When men, in groups, yell comments at you its for them to get off on their feelings towards you. They don't even really want to fuck you (unless they're totally socially clueless) because if they did they wouldn't be yelling comments at you because that's the last way you'd get someone into bed. This isn't flirting in any meaningful sense and its not even intended as such; its to belittle the woman and treat her as an object, rather than as someone who has agency and can flirt back. That's why the element of reciprocity matters in this particular situation, because it recognizes a woman's capacity to function apart from a being f'ing object.

Because of the lack of acknowledgement (or in many cases a conscious and purposeful invasion) of personal space

I don't see how this is a meaningful criteria or has that much use in explaining sexism. Sure, when a woman's space is considered 'social space', that is, she is excluded as having any autonomy, that's an example of sexism - and when men think that they can intrude upon that space, then that's an example of sexism.

But realistically speaking, I don't think calls and staring at someone are an example of someone intruding upon someone's personal space. Sure, if they were 'in your face' about it, that would. But a group of guys catcalling from across the street? Rude and assholish yes, a violation of your bodily autonomy or personal space, no. I don't understand why you would label it sexist because of it violating someone's personal space versus calling it out on what it actually is - reducing a female to an object to be oogled at the delight of others and ignoring her sexual agency.

That's not to mention that what is considered personal space is quite a variable construct -as it needs to be. Standing very close to someone on a train might be considered a violation of personal space in one circumstance, yet be perfectly acceptable on a train or elevator. And, of course, someone can violate my personal space without it being related to sexism (e.g. someone sits at your table in an uncrowded restaurant, or someone reads your newspaper/magazine over your shoulder).

Obviously that happens all the time; there is an obvious difference between checking somebody out and staring at them, making comments about them, etc. when it's obvious they don't want you to, or not caring about whether or not they want you to.

Sure.

---

Just a point on 'sexual objectification.'

I think the concept is so hazy and muddled that it should be scrapped or perhaps limited in use, or at least defined in a consistent manner, even though I sometimes use it.

A person above stated that sexual objectification occurs 'the minute you go from appreciating a woman's beauty to seeing her as something to stick your dick in.'

Well, I don't have a dick but I think that definition is inadequate nonetheless; I see no meaningful divide between what is sexual attraction and what is sexual objectification. I see no reason why sexually admiring a female is to be considered different to wanting to fuck her; normally when I sexually admire a female I want to fuck her. Sexual objectification can't be separated from what you find sexually attractive.

Rather, the word is employed by conservatives and moralists who think that females depicting any amount of skin or promulgating any unorthodox sexuality are subjected to objectification and therefore such behavior ought to be condemned. They're wrong; sexual individualism is often empowering to that particular individual.

No doubt, there is a difference between admiring an individual female's beauty and wanting to fuck her, and seeing females as a whole, as only sex objects. I would criticize the latter view, but I see nothing wrong with sexual objectification. It is not 'ownership of woman's bodies', at least in any Marxist or socially empirical sense. It is not 'conversion of their bodies into property.' That's the worst kind of hyperbole. A woman's body is property when she is a slave or perhaps the object of her husband. A female's body is treatedas property if she is raped. A female's body is treatedlike property if she is refused the right to abortion, because it treats her as an object without any capacity to make her own decisions re her body. You do not convert a woman's body into property when you feel sexually attracted to their body. It is simply what you find attractive in them...Not all sexual things are sexist...

It is irrelevant to whether attraction first comes from when you 'open your mouth to speak' or when you 'see the curve of your ass.' Actually, that's not quite true. The only person that is relevant to is you. If you want to be treated purely in an intellectual capacity, so be it. If you want to be treated purely in a physical capacity, so be it. In truth, most attractions are based on a mix of factors. But what you as an individual desire sure as hell shouldn't dictate what other's desire.