I'm not sure you've actually read all of my posts.
I have. Your 'what if it was in the workplace' was a particular highlight. Do you find that sort of misappropriation helps you understand this better? You are even annoyed that men would look at women, which could rival the absurdness of the 'saying hello is the same as flashing your genitals' argument from Fists of Fedor.
I always thought Americans cherished the First Amendment, obviously not.
I have. Your 'what if it was in the workplace' was a particular highlight. Do you find that sort of misappropriation helps you understand this better? You are even annoyed that men would look at women, which could rival the absurdness of the 'saying hello is the same as flashing your genitals' argument from Fists of Fedor.
I always thought Americans cherished the First Amendment, obviously not.
Actually it's a good point. She certainly never said thank you to any at all which was most ignorant.
TBH when i first saw it i just thought what a miserable looking face she was wearing. For me she isn't even remotely attractive at all and wouldn't get one glance from me let alone a second glance.
It's a very silly video which has backfired big time as it's made screechy feminists a pathetic joke.
Has it really made 'screechy feminists a joke?' As one FM stated, on news sites (The Guardian's CIF, and even the Daily Mail comment section which is hardly the bastion of feminism normally..) have not condemned the video, but rather agreed with its (and the 'Hollaback's') overall message; that these kind of approaches towards a woman on the street are wrong, unwanted, and harassment. I've seen similar opinions on social networking sites, too. Many women have detailed their various experiences throughout their lives in suffering harassment, and in 2014 women should be able to walk the streets in peace - I don't really see why any woman should have to thank random strangers for comments on her appearance - the real question is, why do these strangers think their opinions on others' appearance are so important they need to broadcast it? And if they want to meet women there are plenty of social places do so; I have rarely heard of any of these 'street approaches' actually working. I know in my case when I've been approached I've found it an annoyance and that people turn abusive when you aren't welcoming of their advances very quickly....
Has it really made 'screechy feminists a joke?' As one FM stated, on news sites (The Guardian's CIF, and even the Daily Mail comment section which is hardly the bastion of feminism normally..) have not condemned the video, but rather agreed with its (and the 'Hollaback's') overall message; that these kind of approaches towards a woman on the street are wrong, unwanted, and harassment. I've seen similar opinions on social networking sites, too. Many women have detailed their various experiences throughout their lives in suffering harassment, and in 2014 women should be able to walk the streets in peace - I don't really see why any woman should have to thank random strangers for comments on her appearance - the real question is, why do these strangers think their opinions on others' appearance are so important they need to broadcast it? And if they want to meet women there are plenty of social places do so; I have rarely heard of any of these 'street approaches' actually working. I know in my case when I've been approached I've found it an annoyance and that people turn abusive when you aren't welcoming of their advances very quickly....
Comments moderated in advance on the Daily Mail website are now being used to support an argument. Talk about a house built on sand.
Comments moderated in advance on the Daily Mail website are now being used to support an argument. Talk about a house built on sand.
I was just trying to make a point that if the video is being universally seen as a 'joke' then why, on many, including sites with readers with traditionally anti-feminist perspectives are women relating to the message of the video? The DM reference was an example; not the be and end all of the argument. And by and large, on most comments' sections are moderated - including forums, and thus DS.
I was just trying to make a point that if the video is being universally seen as a 'joke' then why, on many, including sites with readers with traditionally anti-feminist perspectives relating to the message of the video? The DM reference was an example; not the be and end all of the argument. And by and large, on most comments' sections are moderated - including forums, and thus DS.
7. What is the difference between unmoderated comments and comments moderated in advance?
Unmoderated – your comment is published on the site without being checked in advance.
Moderated in advance – your comment will be checked in advance before appearing on the site.
So they check your comment before you post it. Do you see any problem with that? As for the video, donate your money to something worthwhile like Médecins Sans Frontières not that mob.
I have. Your 'what if it was in the workplace' was a particular highlight. Do you find that sort of misappropriation helps you understand this better? You are even annoyed that men would look at women, which could rival the absurdness of the 'saying hello is the same as flashing your genitals' argument from Fists of Fedor.
Still on that old chestnut? Did you explain why you were uncomfortable about a 50 year old approaching a 16 year old?
Where as simply stopping a passer by simply because of your sexual attraction - what exactly do you think you're doing in reality?
As interesting as it is Frankie you're going to have to Message me if you'd like to try and bait me further as everyone I come back to this thread is jumped on by 20 pages or so and I really can't spend the time going back through the thread. It's only by chance I found this one!
I always thought Americans cherished the First Amendment, obviously not.
The first amendment prevents a person speech being made illegal or censored in most circumstances by the government.
Free speech does not prevent your opinion being criticised by others. It's a Common and yet ignorant interpretation of "free speech".
So they check your comment before you post it. Do you see any problem with that?
Not really - on the article I saw, comments criticising the video were also published, they were just downvoted. So the Mail, has hardly become defender of Hollaback by repressing any dissenting views - this is the Daily Mail after all!
Just because there is a popular website dedicated to sexism, it doesn't mean that most women have experienced those things. David Icke's website is very popular that doesn't mean that there are lizard people.
I sometimes think that is the problem with the internet, problems are exaggerated to a staggering level.
I'd take feminism more seriously if they started protesting outside the embassies of Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar about their terrible female rights record.
If you knew any women and you asked them, they would tell you of their experiences, from which you would soon see that most women have experienced street harassment.
You are apparently committing yourself to minimising and denial and as such your assertions are as irrelevant as they are inaccurate.
You've already stated that before about how well you thought a certain poster had made her point in context very well. I asked you then how you came to that conclusion but you never gave a logical explanation.
Here is the post again with the posters comments italicised;
Someone who posts such crackpot opinions as "Men who approach you on the street want sex" and "Guys who approach you on the street are generally: chavs, drunk, mentally ill, foreigners, sex offenders."
Can you please let me know precisely what context you read that in and why you think it to be 'made very well'?
You seem to think this video is a truthful representation of a female's experience in NYC, so what we can garner is that white men don't like to approach ladies in the street. Surely you should be praising us.
What I said was that women identify with it and have experienced similar.
Personally I would have been careful to make sure that the film was more ethnically representative of the reality. I live in London and harassment does not mainly come from black men, I've been to NY and it was no different there. In London, men of all races hassle you but the majority are white as they form the majority of the population.
I think the ethnic mix in the film represents the neighbourhoods the woman was walking around.
It was naïve on the part of the film-makers not to know that people such as yourself try and wriggle out of the main point of the film and blame it on race.
The video concerns itself with the harassment of women by men. While Hollaback professes to campaign about all street harassment of all people, you wouldn't think so by watching the 8 minute video at the top of their "About" page. In among dozens and perhaps well over a hundred people shown and/or speaking during that video, there is one man, 5 seconds from the end. That doesn't look like a campaign to end all street harassment to me, it looks like women's rights activism. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the video is viewed in that context.
[deleted the rest]
The focus of Hollaback is women and the LBGTQ community, this particular film focuses on women.
The context of this video is not 'women's rights activism', the context is simply street harassment of women, just as was Femme de la Rue, which was made by a film student not affiliated with any women's charity or group. This is about behaviour not rights.
I think it's interesting that you do not regard anything coming from a women's organisation as 'independent' in your words. If a men's charity started a campaign to end male on male street violence, would you be so suspicious?
I was being polite. Surely it shouldn't need spelling out?
Why don't you put that question to the person who uploaded the clip to YouTube? They broadcast it after all!
The clue can be found in the first line underneath the publication date.
'Broadcast' was used as a reference to men who decide to tell women on the streets what they think of their appearance...not literally the uploading of the video. But somehow, I think you knew that!;-)
'Broadcast' was used as a reference to men who decide to tell women on the streets what they think of their appearance...not literally the uploading of the video. But somehow, I think you knew that!;-)
You still aren't 'getting this' are you?
It's a scam......a money making racket. It's been exposed long back. The entire thing was a 'set up'.
Has it really made 'screechy feminists a joke?' As one FM stated, on news sites (The Guardian's CIF, and even the Daily Mail comment section which is hardly the bastion of feminism normally..) have not condemned the video, but rather agreed with its (and the 'Hollaback's') overall message; that these kind of approaches towards a woman on the street are wrong, unwanted, and harassment. I've seen similar opinions on social networking sites, too. Many women have detailed their various experiences throughout their lives in suffering harassment, and in 2014 women should be able to walk the streets in peace - I don't really see why any woman should have to thank random strangers for comments on her appearance - the real question is, why do these strangers think their opinions on others' appearance are so important they need to broadcast it? And if they want to meet women there are plenty of social places do so; I have rarely heard of any of these 'street approaches' actually working. I know in my case when I've been approached I've found it an annoyance and that people turn abusive when you aren't welcoming of their advances very quickly....
I don't know if guys think their opinions are 'important', they just think they're entitled to make them, it's part of a power game. 'Nice tits love', 'blow job mouth' etc are not compliments, they're not an overture, they're simply a bit demeaning.
I totally agree that guys turn abusive very quickly when they twig you're not interested. And you can't win: if you ignore a guy he can get aggressive because you've ignored him; but if you reply to a guy, he can take that as encouragement, carry on, and then gets aggressive because he thought he had a chance.
I just read an argument where a man posted the link to a video showing a man walking through NY for 3 hours getting just as much 'harassment' only for women to flood the comments saying its not comparable because he is being complimented, not harassed.
This is where feminism falls down. The double standards.
What I said was that women identify with it and have experienced similar.
Personally I would have been careful to make sure that the film was more ethnically representative of the reality. I live in London and harassment does not mainly come from black men, I've been to NY and it was no different there. In London, men of all races hassle you but the majority are white as they form the majority of the population.
I think the ethnic mix in the film represents the neighbourhoods the woman was walking around.
It was naïve on the part of the film-makers not to know that people such as yourself try and wriggle out of the main point of the film and blame it on race.
Ah yes, rather than talk about the elephant in the room let's blame it all on evil white men. This is why modern feminists aren't taken seriously.
Not really - on the article I saw, comments criticising the video were also published, they were just downvoted. So the Mail, has hardly become defender of Hollaback by repressing any dissenting views - this is the Daily Mail after all!
Social justice warriors make strange bedfellows indeed. Moderated in advance comments from hysterical readers of one of the most disreputable rags on the market isn't something I look to emulate.
Comments
I'm still none the wiser.
Is this some kind of riddle?
Nope. I've explained it more times than I can count, but there are none so blind.
I 'd worry about you if didn't! so all is well
I have. Your 'what if it was in the workplace' was a particular highlight. Do you find that sort of misappropriation helps you understand this better? You are even annoyed that men would look at women, which could rival the absurdness of the 'saying hello is the same as flashing your genitals' argument from Fists of Fedor.
I always thought Americans cherished the First Amendment, obviously not.
I'd love to see that quote on a T Shirt.
Woman in video should've worn it, all those men would've been speechless
Has it really made 'screechy feminists a joke?' As one FM stated, on news sites (The Guardian's CIF, and even the Daily Mail comment section which is hardly the bastion of feminism normally..) have not condemned the video, but rather agreed with its (and the 'Hollaback's') overall message; that these kind of approaches towards a woman on the street are wrong, unwanted, and harassment. I've seen similar opinions on social networking sites, too. Many women have detailed their various experiences throughout their lives in suffering harassment, and in 2014 women should be able to walk the streets in peace - I don't really see why any woman should have to thank random strangers for comments on her appearance - the real question is, why do these strangers think their opinions on others' appearance are so important they need to broadcast it? And if they want to meet women there are plenty of social places do so; I have rarely heard of any of these 'street approaches' actually working. I know in my case when I've been approached I've found it an annoyance and that people turn abusive when you aren't welcoming of their advances very quickly....
Comments moderated in advance on the Daily Mail website are now being used to support an argument. Talk about a house built on sand.
So they check your comment before you post it. Do you see any problem with that? As for the video, donate your money to something worthwhile like Médecins Sans Frontières not that mob.
Still on that old chestnut? Did you explain why you were uncomfortable about a 50 year old approaching a 16 year old?
Where as simply stopping a passer by simply because of your sexual attraction - what exactly do you think you're doing in reality?
As interesting as it is Frankie you're going to have to Message me if you'd like to try and bait me further as everyone I come back to this thread is jumped on by 20 pages or so and I really can't spend the time going back through the thread. It's only by chance I found this one!
The first amendment prevents a person speech being made illegal or censored in most circumstances by the government.
Free speech does not prevent your opinion being criticised by others. It's a Common and yet ignorant interpretation of "free speech".
Feel free to message me.
If you knew any women and you asked them, they would tell you of their experiences, from which you would soon see that most women have experienced street harassment.
You are apparently committing yourself to minimising and denial and as such your assertions are as irrelevant as they are inaccurate.
Here is the post again with the posters comments italicised; Can you please let me know precisely what context you read that in and why you think it to be 'made very well'?
What I said was that women identify with it and have experienced similar.
Personally I would have been careful to make sure that the film was more ethnically representative of the reality. I live in London and harassment does not mainly come from black men, I've been to NY and it was no different there. In London, men of all races hassle you but the majority are white as they form the majority of the population.
I think the ethnic mix in the film represents the neighbourhoods the woman was walking around.
It was naïve on the part of the film-makers not to know that people such as yourself try and wriggle out of the main point of the film and blame it on race.
Why don't you put that question to the person who uploaded the clip to YouTube? They broadcast it after all!
The clue can be found in the first line underneath the publication date.
The focus of Hollaback is women and the LBGTQ community, this particular film focuses on women.
The context of this video is not 'women's rights activism', the context is simply street harassment of women, just as was Femme de la Rue, which was made by a film student not affiliated with any women's charity or group. This is about behaviour not rights.
I think it's interesting that you do not regard anything coming from a women's organisation as 'independent' in your words. If a men's charity started a campaign to end male on male street violence, would you be so suspicious?
Have you sent your donation in yet? Courage of convictions and all that?? ;-)
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=75462523&postcount=1616
It's a scam......a money making racket. It's been exposed long back. The entire thing was a 'set up'.
I don't know if guys think their opinions are 'important', they just think they're entitled to make them, it's part of a power game. 'Nice tits love', 'blow job mouth' etc are not compliments, they're not an overture, they're simply a bit demeaning.
I totally agree that guys turn abusive very quickly when they twig you're not interested. And you can't win: if you ignore a guy he can get aggressive because you've ignored him; but if you reply to a guy, he can take that as encouragement, carry on, and then gets aggressive because he thought he had a chance.
This is where feminism falls down. The double standards.
Ah yes, rather than talk about the elephant in the room let's blame it all on evil white men. This is why modern feminists aren't taken seriously.
I think you're a scam to convince the gullible you're genuine poster... ;-)
Social justice warriors make strange bedfellows indeed. Moderated in advance comments from hysterical readers of one of the most disreputable rags on the market isn't something I look to emulate.