• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Three Hours of Street Harassment in New York

Is street harassment of men an issue?


  • Total voters
    11
Perhaps. However, I think you will find that S&M's position on this matter is more prevalent in the minds of the feminist left than you might like to imagine.

"Don't look at, talk to, or sexualize us in any way (unless we want you to, which you're just supposed to read our minds about, apparently) or else you're an evil sexist who's oppressing women through harassment" seems to be the overall gist of the message here.

Frankly, even besides that, the other major issue is that they're not willing to address the root causes of the problem anyway; namely our horndog "anything goes" culture, and the depraved ideas about sex, courtship, and acceptable social behavior it tends to give a lot of young men.

At the end of the day, the only aim of this nonsense is to rile up women, and try and make men who actually don't misbehave feel bad about their gender, so they'll both be more likely to support feminist ideological and legislative causes. The kinds of men who actually are guilty of this kind of misogynistic crap, quite frankly, don't give a damn.

That's more militant feminism though. Women who hate men, and espouse radical thoughts like that are militant feminists. I don't listen to them because their rhetoric and arguments are bunk straight out of the gate. I prefer to pay attention to the women who believe that they should be treated equally with men and that they should be paid the same for equal work and that reproductive choices are up to the woman. Black and white. Freedom and equality. That's real feminism. What you're showcasing is the jihadist version of feminism, in other words, don't listen to that trash, man, because it's trash, man.
 
That's more militant feminism though. Women who hate men, and espouse radical thoughts like that are militant feminists. I don't listen to them because their rhetoric and arguments are bunk straight out of the gate. I prefer to pay attention to the women who believe that they should be treated equally with men and that they should be paid the same for equal work and that reproductive choices are up to the woman. Black and white. Freedom and equality. That's real feminism. What you're showcasing is the jihadist version of feminism, in other words, don't listen to that trash, man, because it's trash, man.

I absolutely agree with you.

I'm simply pointing out where this current campaign is coming from in the first place. It's not coming from "moderate" feminists, but the extreme variety.

Make no mistake, there is an agenda at play behind it.
 
I absolutely agree with you.

I'm simply pointing out where all of this nonsense is coming from. It's not coming from "moderate" feminists, but the extreme variety.

There is an agenda at play behind it.

Of course there is. But who cares? If they ever manage to destabilize the order of things, uh, well, men are stronger than women. We have the technology to rebuild ;)
 
Misplaced delusions of grandeur aside, the agenda at play here is no less intrinsically anti-male.

Delusions of grandeur? I'm not the one needing to deny sexism and racism in order to not feel bad about my sex and race.

See my edits to the post you quoted and see if they help you understand how ridiculous it is base ones self worth on group identity.
 
Of course there is. But who cares? If they ever manage to destabilize the order of things, uh, well, men are stronger than women. We have the technology to rebuild ;)

Oooo... They're going to be pissed with you for saying that. :lol:
 
See my edits to the post you quoted and see if they help you understand how ridiculous it is base ones self worth on group identity.

Then you're being played for a fool.

The radical feminists and race baiters very much do subscribe to notions of "group identity," and you, ultimately, are not "part of the club."

They'll use your support to further their own agenda, and casually toss you aside afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is. But who cares?

Gath is misrepresenting what S&M posted, as she noted earlier:

So you're taking out the catcalling part you talked about in order to totally change the context of your original question and accuse me of being overly sensitive. Not bothering...


He presented what appeared to be a scenario and then broke it up into pieces to misrepresent her post. She was responding to the scenario he appeared to present and not an individual piece of it.
 
He presented what appeared to be a scenario and then broke it up into pieces to misrepresent her post.

No, she point blank told me that simply going up to a girl I found to be attractive, politely introducing myself, asking for her number, and then taking "no" for an answer and walking away afterwards when she made it clear that she was not interested, constituted "harassment."

Read her posts.
 
Then you're played as a fool.

Because I don't feel bad about my sex and race despite the existence of sexism and racism?

They'll use your support to further their own agenda, and casually toss you aside afterwards.

You really don't understand it's about society and not women or blacks, do you. You only understand politics from a position of an exclusive group working towards its own benefit? How myopic.
 
Gath is misrepresenting what S&M posted, as she noted earlier:




He presented what appeared to be a scenario and then broke it up into pieces to misrepresent her post. She was responding to the scenario he appeared to present and not an individual piece of it.

I was responding to the quotes he posted (the militant man-hating feminist ones) more than anything else and putting the point across that that behavior and language can and should be ignored because it is extremist. I didn't know what he meant by S&M though, as I assumed he didn't mean the S&M I'm aware of ;)
 
You really don't understand it's about society and not women or blacks, do you.

No, it's about women, blacks, and tearing down the society built by the evvvviiiiillll "white male," so they can put their own up instead. It always has been.

In their minds, we're the bogey man holding them back, and so we must be cut down to size.
 
No, she point blank told me that simply going up to a girl I found to be attractive, politely introducing myself, asking for her number, and then taking "no" for an answer and walking away afterwards when she made it clear that she was not interested, constituted "harassment."

Read her posts.

It certainly can be harassment, depending on circumstance. You described a particular circumstance and then dropped context to take her statements out of context. She said so and, having read the exchange, I agree. You were inept or dishonest.
 
No, it's about women, blacks, and tearing down the society built by the evvvviiiiillll "white male," so they can put their own up instead. It always has been.

In their minds, we're the bogey man holding them back, and so we must be cut down to size.

:screwy

Not all men are sexist and not all whites are racist. And equal rights does not "cut" anyone "down".


Such a victim.
 
It certainly can be harassment, depending on circumstance. You described a particular circumstance and then dropped context to take her statements out of context. She said so and, having read the exchange, I agree. You were inept or dishonest.

I fully clarified the extent of the interaction to her.

She still classified it as being "harassment." :shrug:

:screwy

Not all men are sexists and not all whites are racist.

Right, the subservient men and whites, who blindly follow along with whatever their feminist and minority agenda setters collective interests happen to be, while denying that they have any collective interests of their own, are just "A-okay" as far as they're concerned.

They fall under the category of "useful idiots."

In short, they like you because you're a doormat who lends "white guy street cred" to their cause. Again, however, it doesn't make you "part of the club."
 
Last edited:
Right, the subservient men and whites, who blindly follow along with whatever their feminist and minority agenda setters collective interests happen to be, while denying that they have any collective interests of their own, are just "A-okay" as far as they're concerned.

They fall under the category of "useful idiots."

To not be sexist or racist is "subservient"?

My interest is the same as feminists... to fight sexism. My interest in civil rights is the same as minorities... to fight racism.

My goals are their goals. They were my goals first, then I found specific groups interested in promoting equal rights. These groups did not find me, I found them.
 


Apparently, New Yorkers are just kind of creepy and impolite people in general.

Who'd have thunk it, huh? :lol:

Edit:

My bad. I forgot to add the poll. I'll see if a mod can't fix it. lol


Ok, I don't care what planet you're on...that last part was funny!

Anyways, nah, not harassment. It's natural human nature. Those that think it is...grow thicker skins.
 
I was responding to the quotes he posted (the militant man-hating feminist ones) more than anything else and putting the point across that that behavior and language can and should be ignored because it is extremist.

I was just saying, I agree with her assessment of the "giving someone your phone number" scenario he described only to drop context.

I didn't know what he meant by S&M though, as I assumed he didn't mean the S&M I'm aware of ;)

Naughty naughty.
 
To not be sexist or racist is "subservient"?

To devalue everything about one's own identity in order to build up another certainly is.

My interest is the same as feminists... to fight sexism. My interest in civil rights is the same as minorities... to fight racism.

Your definitions of both terms are insane.

As you conceptualize these concepts, the only way to correct so called "racism" and "sexism" is to forcibly rob and disenfranchise one group in order to empower another.

My goals are their goals. They were my goals first, then I found specific groups interested in promoting equal rights. These groups did not find me, I found them.

It doesn't matter who found who. The "end game" is the same.
 
To devalue everything about one's own identity in order to build up another certainly is.

How does recognizing and addressing the existence of sexism and racism devalue your identity?

As you conceptualize these concepts, the only way to correct so called "racism" and "sexism" is to forcibly rob and disenfranchise one group in order to empower another.

Nonsense. Equal rights and a rejection of sexism and racism in no way disenfranchises anyone. Sorry, but losing your systemic privilege is not disenfranchisement.

It doesn't matter who found who. The "end game" is the same.

The end game is fighting against sexism and racism, which you somehow believe devalues you.
 
How does recognizing and addressing the existence of sexism and racism devalue your identity?

You have point blank told me that I am not allowed to have an "identity," because I'm white and male.

You apparently view that as being "sexist" and "fckn' racist," remember? :lol:

Oddly, however, you do not seem to have a problem with feminists promoting female "group identity," or any kind of "ethnic solidarity" that comes from a non-white group.

Why is that?

Oh! That's right, because we're the "majority," and therefore having us identify with another would be a threat to the "hostile take over" you're trying to help the minority interest groups with which you sympathize accomplish. :roll:

Nonsense. Equal rights and a rejection of sexism and racism in no way disenfranchises anyone. Sorry, but losing your systemic privilege is not disenfranchisement.

The end game is fighting against sexism and racism, which you someone believe devalues you.[/QUOTE]

And... Again, your definitions of both terms are nonsensical, and insane.

As such, so is your idea of what "equal rights" and "fighting sexism and racism" entails.
 
Last edited:
You have point blank told me that I am not allowed to have an "identity," because I'm white and male.

No one said any such thing. You're pretending to be a victim. If your identity is based on your sex and race, that's your problem not mine.

You apparently view that as being "sexist" and "fckn' racist," remember? :lol:

What?

And... Again, your definitions of both terms are nonsensical, and insane.

Viewing a social construct in a social context is not insane, it's logical.

As such, so is your idea of what "equal rights" and "fighting sexism and racism" entails.

What's your idea of fighting sexism and racism? Playing the white straight male victim all the time?


Oddly, however, you do not seem to have a problem with feminists promoting female "group identity," or any kind of "ethnic solidarity" that comes from a non-white group.

White is not an ethnic group.

You don't think "white solidarity" is racist?
 
Last edited:
No one said any such thing. You're pretending to be a victim.

Are you really going to try and deny the several hundred times you have argued that claiming any kind of collective interest as a "white" person is "white solidarity," and therefore "racist," while simultaneously arguing that non-white forms of racial solidarity are perfectly acceptable?

Get real, Eco. :lol:

it's logical.

As has been well established, you don't have a particularly accurate grasp of what that word actually means either. ;)

What's your idea of fighting sexism and racism?

Living my life as a regular, upstanding, and productive citizen who looks out for his own interests, and the best interests of his society, all while providing others with ample opportunity to succeed, and not allowing himself to be saddled with "collective guilt" for a state of affairs in which he bears none, or be burdened with an unnecessary socio-political handicap based solely upon his ethnicity or gender in the "politically correct" interests of elevating other, competing, groups. :)

Edit:

White is not an ethnic group.

You don't think "white solidarity" is racist?

:lamo

But "black" is an ethnicity, right? And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with subscribing to "black solidarity?"

You are just TOO MUCH, eco! :lol:
 
Last edited:
Are you really going to try and deny the several hundred times you have argued that claiming any kind of collective interest as a "white" person is "white solidarity," and therefore "racist," while simultaneously arguing that non-white forms of racial solidarity are perfectly acceptable?

Get real, Eco. :lol:

White solidarity is not racist? Wow.

Do you understand white is not an ethnicity?

As has been well established, you don't have a particularly accurate grasp of what that particular word means either. ;)

Now personal insults with winky smileys? Come on, at least don't wince when you spew personal insults, that makes it look cowardly.

Living my life as a regular, upstanding, citizen who looks out for his own interests, and the best interests of his society, without allowing himself to be saddled with "collective guilt" for a state of affairs in which he bears none. :)

When you say "his society" you mean white people and not the US or Western world, right?

Sexism and racism cause me no guilt. Why would they when I'm not a sexist or racist? This guilt you feel because of the existence of sexism and racism appears to come from the idea than an entire race or gender can be labeled by the actions of the few. That's not true for "them" or "us".
 
White solidarity is not racist? Wow.

Not anymore so than black solidarity, or any other ethnic identity.

Again, why do you view whites as being unique in this regard?

Do you understand white is not an ethnicity?

Says who?

Now personal insults with winky smileys? Come on, at least don't wince when you spew personal insults, that makes it look cowardly.

;)

When you say "his society" you mean white people and not the US or Western world, right?

No, I mean my society as a whole.

I simply happen to prefer it as it exists now, as compared to the souped up monstrosity you seem so intent on creating.

Sexism and racism cause me no guilt. Why would they when I'm not a sexist or racist? This guilt you feel because of the existence of sexism and racism appears to come from the idea than an entire race or gender can be labeled by the actions of the few. That's not true for "them" or "us".

Says the man whose entire existence basically centers around atoning for the "evils" of what he perceives as being the white male's "sexist" and "racist" world. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom