Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street

Steven Greenstreet is possibly peeking in your windows.

So, Steven Greenstreet, who describes himself as a “documentary filmmaker, video producer, 7D owner, comic book reader, sci fi nerd, atheistic troublemaker, and social media mercenary” but who I think is better characterized as a “creepy voyeur who is basically a more mainstream version of that guy who hid in a port-a-potty at a yoga festival” has created the delightful website “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street.” Because that’s totally relevant to the cause, you know? I mean, dudes might not be interested in politics if there aren’t titties involved. Why else would we have the 19th Amendment? Next up: UpSkirtShotsOfOccupyWallStreet.tumblr.com.

He also made a video where he interviews some very astute and attractive young women who actually have Things To Say and were probably under the impression that they were being filmed because someone cared about the words coming out of their mouths. Nope! Here is Steven Greenstreet’s motivation:

A lot of fantastic media has been created about the “Occupy” movement. I was watching one video in particular and commented to a friend, “Wow, seeing all those super smart hot chicks at the protest makes me want to be there.” He replied, “Hmmm… Yeah, let’s go with that.”

We instantly went to Tumblr and made hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com. Our original ideas were admittedly sophomoric: Pics of hot chicks being all protesty, videos of hot chicks beating drums in slow-mo, etc. But when we arrived at Zuccotti Park in New York City, it evolved into something more.

There was a vibrant energy in the air, a warmth of community and family, and the voices we heard were so hopeful and passionate. Pretty faces were making signs, giving speeches, organizing crowds, handing out food, singing, dancing, debating, hugging and marching.

It made me want to pack my bags and pitch a tent on Wall Street. And it’s in the light that we created this video.

And we hope it makes you want to be there too.

“Pitch a tent,” good one bro. (Although I did kind of laugh at the idea that this video was created in the light of his pitched tent. Gross, bro). But he called them “smart” so it’s ok right?

So I know I’m all humorless and feministy about this, and why can’t dudes just enjoy the view at a protest without some lady getting all salty about it? It’s nothing against beautiful women — beautiful women are fantastic! It’s the dipshit fratboy vibe of “Ohhh yeah, let’s go to this protest thing because there are hot chicks there, and then we can make a video where we sound kind of, like, deep, you know? Because we can like talk about community and stuff and how even though these hot chicks got us there, we realized that there’s something, like, important happening, you know dude? I’ll wear my favorite Livestrong bracelet.” It’s the idea that women are at OWS to be oggled by dudes, or to inspire some polo-shirted nitwit to Care About Something More [than titties] (TM). It’s that he’s taking pictures of women without their permission or knowledge and posting them on the internet as masturbatory fodder. The one upside is that the Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street tumblr is like Steven Greenstreet’s very own I’m A Creep bat-signal (he may also be a 9/11 truther? Lots of warning signs here). May he never get laid again.

But it’s also that women at OWS are actually being groped and assaulted by creeps and criminals. There’s obviously quite a bit of tension between protestors and police, leading many protestors to try to handle crime and conflict themselves. To their credit, it sounds like protestors have reported sexual assaults immediately, but there’s a vibe that when it comes to other crimes, protestors should “handle it ourselves and not run to Mom and Dad and tattle.” Many protestors suggest using the force of public opinion to change bad behavior.

So far, the “use force of public opinion and not police” argument hasn’t extended to sexual assault — it’s been about things like stealing (and I’m not exactly the biggest champion of the NYPD’s ability to handle sexual assault accusations well, but I also don’t trust a random group of protestors to do any better). But when you get dude-bros like Steven Greenstreet in the mix who see women as boner-makers and not actual human beings who came out to voice their frustration with corporate America just like everyone else, “public opinion” shifts because the public shifts. It gets easier to brush off the complaints and experiences of boner-makers (especially when those complaints and experiences involve actual boners). I mean, if it’s totally ok to go all voyeur and photograph hot chicks without their consent in order to put them on the internet for other dudes to look at, why get mad at a dude who takes it a step further and gets a little grabby? He’s just pitching his tent at the protest, you know?

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Gender, Media & Media Literacy, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street

  1. Florence says:

    I want to know whether these women knew they were about to become the Suicide Girls of the OWS movement.

  2. Sheelzebub says:

    For once, I’d like a movement to be judged/marketed on the hotness of its dudes.

  3. j.cruel says:

    I think this is why Occupy San Francisco’s push to make the movement explicitly anti-misogynistic is such a good idea. This nonsense should not be welcomed. This dude should go join PETA or something.

  4. Casey says:

    Wow. He’s kind of gross, isn’t he?

  5. The reductiveness of attractiveness in patriarchy. Nobody stops listening to Ryan Gosling or George Clooney while acknowledging their fuckability; it’s merely another feature of them, because the members of the dominant group in a kyriarchal structure gets to be multifaceted. So a man can be fuckable and not be a sex object and not be ignored, erased, reduced … objectified. And conversely, the absence of attractiveness in men doesn’t mean that nobody will listen to what they have to say. Men don’t have to be fuckable to get attention, and if they are fuckable, that doesn’t draw all the attention away from everything else about them.

    And when we achieve that with women there will have been a lot of progress. When a woman’s appearance is only a characteristic and not her defining characteristic, when noting that you want to have sex with a woman does not distract from or displace her other aspects, then there will be no problem with a page of Hot Women Of … But then, if we were there, we probably wouldn’t see “Hot Women Of …” because we almost certainly will have moved away from hegemonic hetero- and cis-normativity so there would be public space for people who are neither men nor women and there would be no particular reason to separate men, or separate women, as a group to be assessed based on attractiveness, so maybe there would be one big “Hot People Of …” because women would not be a category for whom the social meaning of attractiveness was different from the assumed norm. Which, now, it most certainly is.

  6. Which is just a longer way of saying what Sheelzebub succinctly stated while I was typing.

  7. Hattie says:

    You know, I think that man is actually a Martian.

  8. anna says:

    Even plenty of liberal men think women are worthless if plain and only good for screwing if pretty. There is no political philosophy (or indeed place in this world) that is free from that.

    And may I point out this is exactly the sort of thing that kicked off second-wave feminism? Women being treated like fucktoys instead of comrades by their political allies. Sigh. How far we have not come.

  9. Autumn says:

    Oh WOW. When I did my chart comparing the sex of photographers at Occupy Wall Street versus SlutWalk, I was thinking it said more about SlutWalk than it did about OWS. And certainly this guy is an outlier; there isn’t a gross voyeuristic air down at Liberty Plaza. But it’s a sad reminder that even when the numbers don’t speak to the ways women are being looked at as objects while in the midst of political acts, we are, we are, we are.

  10. AndrewJenny says:

    The line “hot chicks being all protesty” sums up this guy’s view perfectly. The woman ARE hot chicks who are BEING all protesty. So woman can protest/run a business/cure cancer, but they are still defined as “hot chicks.” That’s their value; everything else is okay so long as it doesn’t get in the way.

  11. j_bird says:

    Pretty faces were making signs, giving speeches, organizing crowds, handing out food, singing, dancing, debating, hugging and marching.

    Isn’t it funny when those pretty faces do things that are almost, like, human? So weird, bro. So weird. But kind of hot.

  12. Nia says:

    But then, he added this!

    “EDIT: Apparently a lot of controversy has erupted online from people passionately opining (among many things) that this is sexist, offensive, and dangerously objectifies women. It was not my intent to do that and I think the spirit of the video, and the voices within, are honorable and inspiring.

    However, if you disagree with me, I encourage you to use that as an excuse to create constructive discussions about the issues you have. Because, to be honest, any excuse is a good excuse to bring up the topic of women’s rights.”

    OMG. WHAT A FEMINIST DOOD.

  13. Nia says:

    Also IDK if its okay to post this, but his e-mail addy is [redacted].

    I sent him this:

    “Hey doood,

    Not that it’s going to make one iota of difference, but your tumbler about “chicks of the occupation” is disgusting and the movement would be better off without frat boys like you in it.

    Sincerely,

    a girl who never comes to this shit anymore, because of shit like what you do. But really who cares. Nothing chicks did was really that important for the social betterment of society, anyway. “

  14. TB says:

    Worse idea: Linking to content you find objectionable and driving traffic to it.

    I don’t like this kind of nonsense anymore than you do. But I think the best response to this is to just dismiss it as the jr. high crap that it is. Just let the dude-bros go about their Tumblr-starting business, and let’s you and me and the rest of us get on with doing the real heavy-lifting around here. “Oh, sorry bro, you missed the all important stuff because you were busy blogging about hot hipster chicks.”

  15. Caitlin says:

    Of COURSE this guy is an atheist. (I say this as an atheist.) I’m so tired of atheist guys acting as though they are super-enlightened about the world yet being totally incapable of recognizing their sexism.

  16. The maturity of some men seems to have peaked somewhere around middle school. Now, let’s see if he manages to take his footage and transform it into a soft core porn site.

  17. Florence says:

    The more I think about this, the more offensive it is. Some protesters showed up to a protest about a massive political and economic issue that is finally getting some traction in the collective mind of the American public, and this one asshole diminishes these protesters to the level of a nudie calendar because they’ve shown up in public while young, white, exotic, and female. He says in his addendum that “any excuse is a good excuse to bring up the topic of women’s rights” but fails completely to see that his one contribution to the Occupy Wall Street movement is a violation of these women’s right to participate freely in that movement. He seeks to gain from reproducing their words and their activism online without their permission AND he includes these women based on their physical adherence to his own mental list of jerk-worthy attributes.

    So, fuck this guy. Steven Greenstreet has documented his own misogyny online and is too dull to realize it. As a political documentarian, every future producer and moneybags he relies on to find and create work will google his name and equate his work with masturbation. I hope that works out for him.

  18. Florence says:

    TB: Worse idea: Linking to content you find objectionable and driving traffic to it.

    Worst idea: Letting objectionable speech stand because it’s distasteful to object.

  19. Janet Maurentonio says:

    He has creepy eyes.

  20. igglanova says:

    I guess the most feminist acts involve ignoring bullshit and letting it stand, then?

  21. Dominique says:

    @j_bird, @ AndrewJenny: you posted exactly what I was thinking. But said it better.

  22. K says:

    It’s too bad a lot of you totally missed the point of this. It’s mocking the frat boys who only pay attention to something with “hot chick” in the title in order to get some views and laughs while highlighting a cause. And yes, you could say it’s exploiting beautiful women… but let’s remember they are in a public setting with video and news cameras everywhere… and the interviewees used their own grown-ass-woman judgment and volunteered to go in front of a camera for a perfect stranger. Everyone needs to lighten up and laugh a little. If you (Feministe) did your job and research as a journalist (yes, online writers need to do their homework too!) and look at the filmmaker’s body of work, you might learn that he produces intelligent documentaries about important civil rights issues like gay marriage and environmental issues such as global warming. But you know, it’s easier to make assumptions and look no further than the surface.

  23. Kelly says:

    Let’s try this again since you didn’t/won’t approve my last comment:

    It’s too bad a lot of you totally missed the point of this. It’s mocking the frat boys who only pay attention to something with “hot chick” in the title in order to get some views and laughs while highlighting a cause. And yes, you could say it’s exploiting beautiful women… but let’s remember they are in a public setting with video and news cameras everywhere… and the interviewees used their own grown-ass-woman judgment and volunteered to go in front of a camera for a perfect stranger. Everyone needs to lighten up and laugh a little. If you (Feministe) did your job and research as a journalist (yes, online writers need to do their homework too!) and look at the filmmaker’s body of work, you might learn that he produces intelligent documentaries about important civil rights issues like gay marriage and environmental issues such as global warming. But you know, it’s easier to make assumptions and look no further than the surface.

  24. Chris says:

    Wow…you all completely missed the point of the video, didn’t you?

  25. Chris says:

    My favorite part is where you call Steven creepy and then proceed to approve a comment that lists his personal email address.

    Whoosh.

  26. Shade Anderson says:

    I know Steve personally, and have for many years. I encourage all of you whose entire knowledge of this man is this thread written by a clearly angry, and woefully under-informed poster, do some research, form your own opinion, there are such things as IRONY, sarcasm and humor. I would further encourage anyone who doesn’t enjoy having their opinions spoon-fed to them to check out his IMDB profile, and look at the body of his work. Steve is an excellent and admirable human being, sharp as a tack, humble, talented, funny and is deeply passionate about a litany of issues, gay rights and Women’s rights chiefly among them. (also; the perils of the partisan divide, the obesity crisis, separation of church and hate) I know by and large hardcore feminists can be a bit….touchy when it comes to perceived egregious sexism. I assure you all Steve was being ironic, playing the part of the foolish frat-boy to get some sniggers from the friends who know him well. The video in question is beautiful, and in no small part because of the beautiful women in it, but also because it gave them a platform to speak, and they spoke well, and bless you all, but I hope this laughable controversy lets more people see it. Because Steve is an artist, and a Documentarian of the first order, and as someone who knows him well, I can say with absolute confidence that you’re sadly mistaken about who and what he is. But that’s typical of snap-judgements, no? I doubt this comment will make it through the filtering of administrators, because it goes to quell the fires of misplaced hatred and misandry that keep these boards alive. I challenge whomever moderates these threads to let my comment through, and encourage autodidactism, not warlock-hunt haterism.

  27. Chelsea says:

    Oh god, that’s gross. The title alone makes me want to vomit.

    Btw, I’m new here! And this site is amazing.

  28. igglanova says:

    Hey, Steve(s)! Glad you enjoyed the article.

    • Jill says:

      But you know, it’s easier to make assumptions and look no further than the surface.

      Dude. It’s a Tumblr blog. You seriously think that people need to research someone’s entire body of work before they criticize a dipshit Tumblr.

      The Internet: Ur doin it rong.

  29. Jadey says:

    Jill, thank you for publishing Steve’s obvious sock-puppet’s Shade’s comment. Not because I give a flying fuck about accusations of censorship and the feminist hivemind, but because you always give us the best trolls.

    Thank god for my finely-tuned sense of humour, I always know just who to laugh at: transactionally-minded liberals who honestly believe that not being a douchebag about one thing gives them the credit to be a douchebag about something else and not get called on it.

  30. Cody says:

    Jill: Dude. It’s a Tumblr blog. You seriously think that people need to research someone’s entire body of work before they criticize a dipshit Tumblr.

    The Internet: Ur doin it rong.

    Here we see the author’s true colors, just a muck-slinging journalist. It’s articles like this that give feminism and woman’s rights a bad rap. You really need to learn to lead more intellectual discussions than rant over every little situation that makes you upset.

  31. Iany says:

    I get really annoyed when people get sent in to say, “I know this person, so you shouldn’t be offended by offensive things they’ve done, because I like them and think they’re really nice.”

    They still did something offensive that people are sick of seeing.

    Hell, I’ve had it done to me before. I was still hurt by the original works and condescended to in an attempt to shut me up. Didn’t work.

  32. Iany says:

    Jadey:
    Thank god for my finely-tuned sense of humour, I always know just who to laugh at: transactionally-minded liberals who honestly believe that not being a douchebag about one thing gives them the credit to be a douchebag about something else and not get called on it.

    ^Jadey makes my point better.

  33. Rachel says:

    Didn’t we decide collectively that ‘ironic sexism’ like ‘ironic racism’ is pretty much just as unnaceptable? I swear I feel like that happened.

  34. TokenResponder says:

    This article, along with this entire website, is entirely bullshit. You have already made up tourminds about this person. You are glossing over him as a person, specifically what he is actually writing, and judging him by something he does as a hobby. I’ve seen plenty of guys who go out taking pictures of trees. I’ve seen plenty ofgirls who thrive on male attention, sunbathing inpublic places where nothing but bikinis. Yet the combination of these two things seems to be too much! Photograph women in public automatically equals creeeper. Even if it is raising awareness that the author (albeit belatedly) believes in. I’ve seen a plethora of women use this same tactic (Women “Baring skin” for PETA). What sets him apart? Because women are always the victims?
    Wake the fuck up. It’s 2011. Second wave feminism was started because a bunch of women, much like hipsters, idolized the revolutionary movement of their parents generation, but didn’t actually have anything to protest. So all of sudden, innocuous actions were attacked, like the immune system of someone with allergies going ape shit over some peanuts. Most women that I know who are doing damn well for themselves never talk about the crap on this website. Because, like everyone else who is doing well for themselves, they WORKED THEIR ASS OFF. They didn’t sip wine at book club, complaining about what a male dominated culture we live in. Jesus Christ.

  35. igglanova says:

    Isn’t ‘Hey, I’m friends with this guy and he’s totally all right!’ something of a tautology, anyway? I mean duh, everyone who’s friends with a jackass is going to think said jackass is an OK guy, or they wouldn’t be friends with him.

    And yet, jackasses still exist in the world…

  36. Tracy Clayton says:

    Knowing Steve personally, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

    • Jill says:

      Knowing Steve personally, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

      Is that the rule now? We can’t talk about the utter shit people put on the internet unless we know them personally?

      According to those rules, you don’t know me personally, and so you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about, so why are you commenting? Isn’t this fun?

  37. Robbie Bobby says:

    That’s crap, cause most of those women aren’t hot at all…totally misleading; a waste of my time.

  38. Kelly says:

    Jill: you’re awesome. No, really.

  39. Steve (The female version) says:

    Very interesting, and by interesting I mean that Jill’s article here is narrow-minded and shortsighted. This is merely hammering in an already determined agenda of feminism by any means possible. Rather than view ‘Hot Chicks Occupy Wallstreet’ as an alternative and fun way of contributing to and promoting an important issue, Jill has managed to set her microscope to 1000x by trying to shift the attention on herself and her ’cause.’
    Occupy Wall Street is a movement where anyone, young and old, black or white, hot or not, can stand and oppose wall street’s corruption and greed. We need to look at the motivations here. Was the motivation of ‘Hot Chicks Occupy WallStreet’ malicious? No. Was it exploitative? No. Was it a different way of publicizing an extremely important event? Yes!
    Stop this shallow name-calling and look at the bigger picture. And let’s face it, women are beautiful, so are men. We’re past the days where it’s NOT okay to call a woman beautiful, we’ve embraced the age where it IS okay to call a man beautiful. The sexual revolution has already come, and we’re living in it now.
    Stop criticizing, stop the petty name-calling and make use of your time by going outside and marching. If you’re too afraid that your picture might end up on the internet, then I suggest you close your FaceBook account. Because Facebook also contains ‘sexist’ pictures of beautiful women. Hey, perhaps I just gave you an idea for your next column?

  40. jennygadget says:

    “…but also because it gave them a platform to speak…”

    Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure they could have found a platform without your loverly friend. One that didn’t work at undermining their actual words even.

    “any excuse is a good excuse to bring up the topic of women’s rights”

    * facepalm *

    here’s a thought. how bout instead of giving lip service to women’s rights, we work on making sure our actions are grounded in the radical idea that women are people.

  41. Iany says:

    igglanova:
    Isn’t ‘Hey, I’m friends with this guy and he’s totally all right!’ something of a tautology, anyway?I mean duh, everyone who’s friends with a jackass is going to think said jackass is an OK guy, or they wouldn’t be friends with him.

    Not really. You never agree with your friends all of the time (unless you share some sort of magical mind bond or never talk about anything important to you, which is how some relationships are and those relationships can still have something to give). You can like people for certain aspects of their character while disliking others.

    I only object when your mates do something dickheaded and you *don’t* call them out on it and instead blame the person on the receiving end of the bile.

  42. EG says:

    it goes to quell the fires of misplaced hatred and misandry that keep these boards alive. I challenge whomever moderates these threads to let my comment through, and encourage autodidactism, not warlock-hunt haterism.

    This is the finest, funniest piece of self-important, overwrought, overwritten purple prose I have seen on the internet in quite some time! Bravo, good sir! Bravo!

    “Quell the fires of misplaced hatred and misandry”
    “warlock-hunt”

    Heh.

  43. CaliOak says:

    Someone just won the ‘Does Not Get It Award.

    Posting pictures of people online complains about having his email address posted? Will the internet ever grow up? Will chocolate bars grow on trees?

  44. Skateaway says:

    I’m just glad that while crusading for women’s rights, this guy didn’t include any ugly chicks. That’d be a really bad P.R. move for feminism. Thanks for keeping women’s welfare at heart, dude!

  45. GangstaWitch says:

    Hahahaha WARLOCK HUNT. Awesome, glad to see some WoW players here.

  46. Saurs says:

    You ugly touchy bitches jus’ don’ geddit! He cares about “the obesity crisis,” fer fuck’s sake! Don’t you judge him! &c.

  47. 3ed Party Redditer says:

    Listen, I’ll be the first to say that the creative process of his was questionable to say the least. However, if you get past preconceived notions about his character his film wasn’t objectifying women. Sure they were good looking, but it’s what they said was moving. Had I come across this in any other way, I would have thought “Hey, that was nicely made and brought a smile to my face.” I understand that you’re trying to keep an unbiased view towards the women standing up for what is right on Wall St, and the kinds of men that would use OWS as a way to cop a feel are the worst kind od people. I just feel like you’re trying a little hard to over analyze it. I also feel as though your argument hinges rather hard on the naivete of the women being filmed, and i have trouble condoning slippery slope logic.

    And full disclosure, I am a man. I just felt like it needed to be said.

  48. Sam says:

    Jill: Is that the rule now? We can’t talk about the utter shit people put on the internet unless we know them personally?

    According to those rules, you don’t know me personally, and so you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about, so why are you commenting? Isn’t this fun?

    Wow… you seem to have a very aggressive and sarcastic attitude… I do agree that this Steve guy probably did not think about the possible repercussions of photographing women… and his idea of going to OWS to photograph beautiful women does seem odd… but based on his text, I sort of get a vibe that his intentions were good when he posted that statement… and of course beautiful women and intelligent political and socio-economic dialogue go well together… but would you not agree that beauty is a wonderful thing and should be celebrated… I think beauty and brains can compliment each other like a fine dinner and wine, and perhaps that is what Steve was trying to show… I do not think he meant “pitch a tent” in the context you interpret it… I’m just trying to say that some people seem to be easily offended when it comes to concepts of beauty, and usually these people who are most offended are not the most attractive… Men and women are objectified, many male athletes and male movie stars are objectified or over-sexualized as well, and minor discrimination based on attractiveness does take place in the world, but I do believe that articulate and intelligent women who happen to be beautiful is something to be appreciated… I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break… this is why porn sites are some of the most visited sites on the internet… but Steve seems to have not thought this through too well… and if these women were misled about the purpose of being photographed or interviewed, then thats kinda fucked.

    • Jill says:

      Wow… you seem to have a very aggressive and sarcastic attitude…

      I do! It’s very unladlylike.

      I’m just trying to say that some people seem to be easily offended when it comes to concepts of beauty, and usually these people who are most offended are not the most attractive…

      Yeah, you got me: I’m mad about this because I’m ugly. You have definitely proven wrong the feminist argument that douchebro misogynist dudes who claim to be progressive base the value of a woman’s arguments on how attractive they find her.

      Sorry to hear I won’t be making the Hot Chicks of OWS now.

  49. Robin Turner says:

    “A lot of fantastic media has been created about the “Occupy” movement.”

    I don’t care what the guy thinks about OWS; I’m going to nail his ass to a tree for subject-verb disagreement.

  50. violet says:

    Shade Anderson (or more likely creepy Steven himself)
    “IRONY, sarcasm and humor. I would further encourage anyone who doesn’t enjoy having their opinions spoon-fed to them to check out his IMDB profile,”

    Doing it ONCE is irony. Doing it in the middle of a society that judges and pressurises women about their looks and sexual availability 24/7 ISN’T BLOODY IRONY YOU UTTER MORON. THIS IS OUR CONTINUAL FUCKING REALITY. The women agreed to join a political protest; they didn’t agree to sodding join some sort of “OWS: Girls Gone Wild!” poster campaign for you and your pathetic mates to jerk off over.

  51. Sheelzebub says:

    Shade, I know that closet misogynist progressive dude bros can get a bit. . .touchy when the womenfolk don’t bow down to kiss their asses, but I’m going to say it anyway: it’s pretty fucked up when you decide we have to know your friend before we can criticize something he did and that you justify this because he’s giving beautiful women a platform to speak. (Also, rather funny that you throw a tantrum because the uppity females had the gall to criticize him without knowing him, yet you can make your own assumptions about us. I guess the rules are different for special snowflakes like you.)

    Apparently your world, the only women who should be heard are the hawt ones. Oddly enough, this is not a requirement for the guys, who are never judged on their level of attractiveness. I mean, I have yet to see a “hot guys of OWS” or the need to give men credibility based upon their looks. Their looks are a small part of who they are and they are respected as humans–us, not so much, as you and your little buddy with his douchey project showcase yet again and again.

    Progressive dudebros whine about unity in the movement, but then pull shit like this and spin until they burst into flame when they get blowback for it? Here’s a ticket to the cluetrain, cupcake: this is not how you build a movement. Instead of mansplaining to us about how we should react or what is really important, how about you shut the fuck up and listen to the people who make up this movement? You can throw tantrums about misandry all you want, but the reality is, you and your dudebro “friend” are doing a lot to fuck up the progressive movement with this divisive and misogynist shit.

    Also–don’t throw around words like “irony” “satire” and “misandry” until you actually know what they mean. Irony and satire don’t mean douchiness, and misandry doesn’t mean “women who object to my buddy’s project because they are sick and tired of having their worth as people based on their appearence.”

  52. chava says:

    Are you kissing-phobic Sam?

    Please learn the value and meaning of both the phrase tl;dr and the various ways in which good intentions do not excuse douchetastic action.

    Sam: Wow… you seem to have a very aggressive and sarcastic attitude… I do agree that this Steve guy probably did not think about the possible repercussions of photographing women… and his idea of going to OWS to photograph beautiful women does seem odd… but based on his text, I sort of get a vibe that his intentions were good when he posted that statement… and of course beautiful women and intelligent political and socio-economic dialogue go well together… but would you not agree that beauty is a wonderful thing and should be celebrated… I think beauty and brains can compliment each other like a fine dinner and wine, and perhaps that is what Steve was trying to show… I do not think he meant “pitch a tent” in the context you interpret it… I’m just trying to say that some people seem to be easily offended when it comes to concepts of beauty, and usually these people who are most offended are not the most attractive… Men and women are objectified, many male athletes and male movie stars are objectified or over-sexualized as well,and minor discrimination based on attractiveness does take place in the world, but I do believe that articulate and intelligent women who happen to be beautiful is something to be appreciated… I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break… this is why porn sites are some of the most visited sites on the internet… but Steve seems to have not thought this through too well… and if these women were misled about the purpose of being photographed or interviewed, then thats kinda fucked.

  53. Alex says:

    Sam: I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break…

    Evolution… That word… I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Sam, your comment has to be the most hilarious thing I’ve ever read on Feministe. Sorry Jill and all the other super funny people who comment here but really, “I think beauty and brains compliment each other like a fine dinner and wine”, “usually the people who are most offended are not the most attractive” and “minor discrimination does take place in the world” is comedy gold. Bless your little heart!

  54. Alex says:

    Oops, “minor discrimination based on attractiveness does take place in the world”. Fail. Stupid lady brain.

  55. victoria says:

    so, how many wins do we already have on the “sexist joke bingo” cards?

  56. Florence says:

    It’s super annoying when people respond to your dearly held beliefs with, “you’re cute!”, isn’t it.

  57. jennygadget says:

    “However, if you get past preconceived notions about his character….”

    Hint: we are judging his character based on his actions, not the other way around.

    (lwhat the fuck else would we be judging him on? The only reason I even know of him is because of his actions. It’s not like he fucking walked up the library reference desk I work at and I started judging him before he even opened his mouth.)

  58. Alex says:

    jennygadget, maybe they’re expecting the same treatment they give women? They’re a bit touchy about being judged, huh?

  59. Jovan1984 says:

    Does this Greenstreet idiot have a Twitter page? If so, let me know and I will voice my displeasure with him.

  60. toritan says:

    @sam

    “I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break”

    I guess it is a good thing that women are the pilots and navigators of the OWS movement. The overgrown boys and armchair warriors of the “prolonged adolescence” movement who call themselves “men” these days should be happy that they have a place in the luggage compartment.

  61. Chris says:

    Good lord…talk about cognitive dissonance. The reactions of the commenters on this blog are 180 degrees different than the generally positive comments about the video that you see in other forums- Reddit, Facebook, and Vimeo.

    No doubt the readers here will interpret this discrepancy of opinions as a sign that they are more highly evolved than everyone else…more highly in tune with the fact that EVERY man, everywhere, is out to objectify women and keep them down. That we’re all evil, stupid, unenlightened frat-boy types who value beauty over brains and are terrified of strong, intelligent women who’s self worth stems from their analytical abilities instead of their looks. That’s the narrative here right? My what a nuanced, unpredictable point of view from a blog with a totally-not-cliche title like “Feministe” :/

    Let me present you with a different narrative: You missed the joke. Whoosh.

    • Jill says:

      Good lord…talk about cognitive dissonance.

      …do you know what that term means? It doesn’t mean “feminist writers say one thing and dudes on Reddit say another.”

      That we’re all evil, stupid, unenlightened frat-boy types who value beauty over brains and are terrified of strong, intelligent women who’s self worth stems from their analytical abilities instead of their looks. That’s the narrative here right? My what a nuanced, unpredictable point of view from a blog with a totally-not-cliche title like “Feministe” :/

      I don’t think all men are evil, stupid, unenlightened fratboy types. I do think men who make “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” tumblrs and videos are stupid, unenlightened fratboy types. Especially when they’re only defenses are “you just don’t get the joke!!!!”

  62. LC says:

    Isn’t the twitter page linked on top?

    Also, to the dudebro brigade that came in to defend how this was actually irony, or satire, you shouldn’t need to bring up the “I know him”. You could point to the video, or his other work. You could explain the parallels of how what he is doing is like what Colbert is doing.

    You could also know something about satire, and that it is hard, and go “damn, we must have really missed the mark if no one is getting it”.

    But you didn’t do any of that, did you?

  63. Jadey says:

    Chris: My what a nuanced, unpredictable point of view from a blog with a totally-not-cliche title like “Feministe” :/

    You’re so right! A feminist blog calling itself “Feministe” is such an absurdly obvious choice. And such a cliche, because it’s true that 54% of all feminist blogs have the exact same name as this one. So what they hell were they thinking? Clearly they should have gone with something like, “Jill’s House of Wine”* or “All Dog-Blogging, All The Time” or “Mumbai Restaurant Reviews”. Far less predictable, those.

    Chris: Let me present you with a different narrative: You missed the joke.

    I’m still quite certain I know exactly who the joke is.

  64. Alex says:

    Heh, “All Dog-Blogging, All the Time”. Jadey, you win the internets.

  65. Florence says:

    Chris: Good lord…talk about cognitive dissonance. The reactions of the commenters on this blog are 180 degrees different than the generally positive comments about the video that you see in other forums- Reddit, Facebook, and Vimeo.

    Weird. A video celebrating young, smart, political women is criticized by young, smart, political women for being sexist. You come back with, “It was just a joke,” and, “You should be flattered; we said we’d bone you!”

    It’s telling of you, not us, that you’re trying to divide a category like “young, smart, political women” into hot chicks and feminists, where “hot chicks” are pictures that don’t talk back and “feminists” are women that do.

  66. LC says:

    I have a friend who would probably love reading “All Dog-Blogging, All the Time”.

  67. jennygadget says:

    Alex,

    quite. They also seem to not understand this whole idea that differing opinions are not automatically invalid opinions.

    and OMG re: the tired refrain of “it’s just a joke!”

    1) so?

    2) What does that even mean? How can something be “just” a joke? That’s like claiming “it was just words!” to people that are arguing said words were inappropriate.

    3) If it was “just” a joke – somehow I have a feeling y’all wouldn’t be so damn defensive that your “joke” was “misread.”

    4) Um…what is “funny” about thinking hot women are hot? Like so many times that guys fall back on “it’s just a joke” to excuse their douchy actions, trying to frame it as a joke just makes it worse.

    Creating a site that admires protestors for their looks rather than their words and actions is bad enough. Restricting it to only women is just…yeah, cuz clearly what women in particular need is more objectification. That’s really going to fucking help the cause.

    But to then say “hey, we just thought it would be funny to talk about how hot female protestors are” is just…what? So, the whole objectifying people who are speaking out because they feel marginalized…the whole wanting to look at them and share looking at them at the expense of what they are there to fight for wasn’t enough? No, you all think it makes sense to defend this by trivializing it further via saying that the point really wasn’t even that they are hot so much as you thought it would be a good laugh to talk about how hot they are. wtf?

  68. Sam says:

    @ Alex-

    Here’s a study verifying the whole “men look at women’s bodies due to evolution”

    Evolution- (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/27/men-look-at-women-s-bodies-is-evolution-at-work.html

    And here’s another study regarding our brain actually having a measurable response to attractive women, we simply cannot control all of our perverse, animal instincts.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551011/Why-men-like-to-gaze-on-the-female-form.html

    @Chava- not kissing-phobic… not sure what the joke was, but apparently it went right over my head.

    Its very well documented that men simply just cannot help but sexualize women. Males with an aptitude to look at women and identify viable, fertile partners who yield offspring had a greater chance to pass along their genetic code to following generations. We are talking way back in the cave man/ primitive neandental/ homoerectus days. Over thousands of years, males with a greater aptitude of essentially looking at a women and guessing “If I fuck her, she will yield offspring with my genetics” passed along their genes more frequently than males who have an aptitude to, lets say, build and decorate a nicer cave. From an evolutionary standpoint, preserving one’s species and one’s biological code is an absolute priority, so one could argue that to thousands of years of biological adaptation (evolution) and also a society that objectifies women in advertising, television, and social media has led to the frat-boyish stereotype that this blog so enjoys to villify.

    This Steve guy is not the brightest star in the sky, but he is also a product of our times… male evolutionary instinct combined with a young dude’s insatiable libido, and a confused interest in activist politics thrown in.

    Honestly, a video of attractive women holding intelligent, political dialogue about the pressing issues of the decade does not seem like the worst thing in the world. I found it entertaining. When I make a list of recent world events that pisses me off, this is probably not in the top 200. 1st world problems much?

    Oh, by the way, men in politics have to deal with the same shit, in a different platform. Do you ever think William Taft would be elected in today’s political arena? The age of television and youtube? William Howard Taft was one ugly motherfucker, but he could debate the shit out of his opponents, and in the age of Radio, Taft’s articulation and ideas were what got him elected. In this day and age, looks are almost as important your political platform… this can be the only explanation why Sarah Palin was nominated for Vice President.

    Also, television and our superficial society can be thanked for electing Bush. He’s just a good ole’ boy! Hes just a guy you could grab a beer with! He also butchered the shit out of the English language and could not string together a coherent sentence most of the time. By by golly, when you looked at him, he just a regular dude, and he had a certain charisma that worked great on TV.

    Look at the Republican debates lately, do you see any ugly dudes up there with a podium? Sure, not all of them could be models like Romney or Bachman, but there’s definitely no ugly Abe Lincoln-looking dudes up there.

    Anyway, that was a random tangent….

    But then again, I’m a dude and I will readily admit that dudes have a much easier life than women, and this Steve guy is not helping anything. I would say he’s not hurting anything either….

    If there were two videos of male OWS activists, and one video contained hot dudes w/ rock hard abs spouting political rhetoric, and the other video had a bunch of dudes looking like they are Phillip Seymour Homan and Steve Buschimi’s love child, YOU know the video of the hotties is going to get way more views!!

    I’m just saying, don’t pretend you all are innocent either.

    Disclaimer: Yes, I objectify women. I do not photograph them in public. You women objectify men too. It happens.

  69. Jadey says:

    Sam: Here’s a study verifying the whole “men look at women’s bodies due to evolution”

    Evolution- (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/09/27/men-look-at-women-s-bodies-is-evolution-at-work.html

    The reporter writing that article actually did a very good job (given how shitty most science reporting is) in sussing out the major limitation of the Confer, Perilloux, and Buss study – they assumed evolutionary processes without ever testing them or eliminating alternative explanations, and thus provide no validation whatsoever for that theoretical framework (at least not in a single study). It’s a common practice among evolutionary psychologists to the detriment of the field as a whole, sadly, and a poor reflection on the scientific method and Popper’s principle of falsifiability.

    For the second article I can make no comment because, as is the tragic and stupid practice of most science reporters, they failed to include enough information to identify the specific study without me spending half my day combing through a database. I wonder if they actually controlled for cultural processes though, which would make them quite the exception among evo psych researchers, as I said.

    These things may be primarily evolution-driven, but the scientists aren’t there yet. (And please don’t suggest that I’m anti-evo psych – I love evolutionary theory and psychology, but I’m still against low standards in research.)

  70. jennygadget says:

    “Oh, by the way, men in politics have to deal with the same shit, in a different platform.”

    LOL

    My brother used to say that. Then he worked on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He doesn’t say that anymore.

  71. Lyn says:

    Firstly, being attracted to someone is actually not the same as objectifying them. Attracted to someone: talk to them, see if you have common interests (in a one night stand, long term relationship, bunnies, whatever is important to the people involved) and then go from there. Objectifying someone: posting pictures and film of someone talking because they are hot (not for what they actually say).

    Sam: “In this day and age, looks are almost as important your political platform… this can be the only explanation why Sarah Palin was nominated for Vice President. ”

    Secondly, I really like that part of the evidence for looks being as important for women as men in politics involved Sarah Palin. Wtf?

  72. Kaz says:

    I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break

    Breaking news! Gay men, asexual men, and men who are otherwise not sexually attracted to women no longer exist! If you belong to one of the above categories, please do us a favour and disappear into thin air right now so our theories can match up with reality!

  73. Butts says:

    this is kind of humourless, isn’t it? HOLY SHIT BREAKING NEWS HETEROSEXUAL MALES ARE KIND OF INTO FEMALES, SOME ARE CRUDER THAN OTHERS. it always amazes me how much people read into gender politics, a complete non-issue in civilised countries (your country is too religious to be civilised, really) that you blow out of proportion by examining every little detail and finding something to be outraged by.

  74. Skateaway says:

    Oh, my gosh. The video is even grosser than I imagined. I wanted to believe it was well-meaning but misquided instead of just gross. Really, the lingering shots on eyes, on hair, on wrists and ankles and boots? This really was about, “And these sexy, gorgeous creatures on display for my delight have opinions, too! Bonus!” I need to take a shower now. :(

    Sam: Wow… you seem to have a very aggressive and sarcastic attitude…

    Sometimes people–even lady-people–get angry when we’re handed a big plate full of Same Shit, Different Day and then told we should be grateful for it. It makes us cranky.
    When a whole bunch of people–especially people who you feel should be most flattered by the actions in question (in this case, smart, politically-minded women)–are contemptuous of something, it’s often smart to set aside your pre-conceived notions and ask WHY they’re annoyed instead of telling them they shouldn’t be.

    Sam: I do agree that this Steve guy probably did not think about the possible repercussions of photographing women… and his idea of going to OWS to photograph beautiful women does seem odd…

    Yup. Or “gross.” Or “creepy.”

    And before you say I’m overreacting with those words, let’s think this through. The women who were photographed went to OWS to engage in political discourse, not to compete in a beauty pageant. But some dude decides to reduce them to their femininity–they’re not protestors, they’re Hot Chick Protestors–because they dared step outside their doors while in female bodies. Ladies, don’t want to be objectified? Then do be smart enough not to go in public while female and “hot.” Don’t want to be ignored? Then don’t go out in public while female and less than “hot.” Thanks!

    Sam:
    of course beautiful women and intelligent political and socio-economic dialogue go well together… but would you not agree that beauty is a wonderful thing and should be celebrated… I think beauty and brains can compliment each other like a fine dinner and wine, and perhaps that is what Steve was trying to show…

    Yes, let us celebrate these fine specimens! Such delightful creatures, with beauty and brains in abundance. They delight a man’s heart as they delight his eye. Ah, women!

    Sam: I’m just trying to say that some people seem to be easily offended when it comes to concepts of beauty, and usually these people who are most offended are not the most attractive…

    Ugly chicks! Your opinions: they do not matter.

    Sam:minor discrimination based on attractiveness does take place in the world,

    *blink blink* You don’t say?
    You know what, Sam? The problem with this is not that it’s discrimination. The problem is that women lose here NO MATTER WHAT. If a woman is “hot,” her actions and her passionately held beliefs are reduced to mere trivia compared to her sultry eyes and silky hair. And if a woman is not “hot”? Well, her opinions aren’t heard at all. She’s erased as irrelevant.

    Sam: I am kinda rambling but I guess I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break…

    Fortunately, women have nothing to gain on the evolutionary scale from desiring sex. (Well, nothing except THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES, the same imperative that drives hetero male desire.*) Otherwise, straight women might be “hard-wired” to look at male bodies with desire, and under such circumstances, how could we be expected to treat men with dignity and respect? EVOLUTION IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PEOPLE! WHY DO YOU FEMINISTS HATE SCIENCE?

    *I’m sorry for any erasure of asexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. Evolution is, of course, way more complicated than the popular “Ugh, must breed!” model. But even at that elementary level, this guy’s reasoning doesn’t hold up.

    Sam:
    but Steve seems to have not thought this through too well… and if these women were misled about the purpose of being photographed or interviewed, then thats kinda fucked.

    Stick with this instinct, Sam. You’re on to something.

    Chris:
    No doubt the readers here will interpret this discrepancy of opinions as a sign that they are more highly evolved than everyone else…more highly in tune with the fact that EVERY man, everywhere, is out to objectify women and keep them down.That we’re all evil, stupid, unenlightened frat-boy types who value beauty over brains and are terrified of strong, intelligent women who’s self worth stems from their analytical abilities instead of their looks.

    Or we might just be in tune with the fact that THIS man, here, is out to objectify women. Based on…I dunno…his public work?

    Ze point, you have meesed heem. Whoosh.

    • Jill says:

      No one is saying that straight men shouldn’t be attracted to women, or that it’s bad to see women as sexy. We’re saying you have a choice about making a goddamned video about it, when you feature women who are not appearing in the video or at this protest in order to be featured on some dude’s tumblr site.

  75. Safiya Outlines says:

    Not only is it bad enough when we get tedious dudebros whining on here, but why o sodding why do they have to be so tl;dr about it?

    On what planet did this ever seem like a good idea?

  76. Norma says:

    Sam: And here’s another study regarding our brain actually having a measurable response to attractive women, we simply cannot control all of our perverse, animal instincts.

    Evolution is an amazing thing, isn’t it? My estrogen-drenched lady-brain did not actually process your post for content, such as there was, but only evaluated its writer’s potential as mating material. My brain then sent a message to my ovaries, warning them that you were a massive douchenozzle with a remarkably poor understanding of the theory of evolutionary psychology. My uterus recoiled in horror, sending me a perverse, animal instinct to avoid procreating with such a dumbass.

  77. Q Grrl says:

    Ugh. That video was terrible. I don’t think that most of those were candid shots. I think he used models. Who camps out, protests, and hangs with huge crowds *and* has perfect, conventional make-up in place? In my almost 50 years on the planet, I haven’t seen it. Of course, I’d be happy to be wrong, because hiring models to make a “documentary” about “hot” women at the protests is creepy as all fuck.

    … and how convenient that one of those hotties was Egyptian! With perfect make-up! Just keepin’ it real, yo!

  78. Sam says:

    LOLOLOL Thanks for the trolling good times, yo!

  79. Alex says:

    Sam: When I make a list of recent world events that pisses me off, this is probably not in the top 200. 1st world problems much?

    Not me. This is the most important event to me in the history of important world events (well there was the Richard Dawkins-elevator thing but that PALES). I HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE UPSET IN ALL MY LIFE.

    And what Jadey said about the studies.

    • Jill says:

      Sam: When I make a list of recent world events that pisses me off, this is probably not in the top 200. 1st world problems much?

      From the bottom of the post:

      “This article was written by jill

      jill has written 4469 posts for Feministe.”

  80. Sam says:

    Well I do admire your dedication and writing ability. Yes, I agree that creating a video that involved photographing and video taping women without their explicit consent or knowledge is not going to earn him a lot of kudos, to understate. And the idea of calling the webpage “Hot women of OWS” does not seem tasteful. I wonder how I would react if there was a webpage called “Hot men of OWS.” Can’t pretend to know, cause there is not one. I would guess that I wouldn’t care that much, but my sex has not been discriminated against for years, so if that were the case I would probably be more attuned and care more about to this sort of thing. Thanks for all the rebuttals and witty remarks, I do enjoy a good debate and exchange of viewpoints!

  81. EG says:

    Sam:

    I would just like to say again that men are unfortunately hard-wired to look at women’s bodies in a sexual way, its in our biology and thousands of years of evolution and adaptation are hard to break

    Obviously. Men are evolutionarily hard-wired to film women whom they find sexually attractive and post those images to the internet with patronizing commentary attached. That’s just how evolution works. It’s a good thing the species finally got around to inventing cameras and video recorders and computers and the internet so that this basic evolutionary impulse can be fulfilled.

    Chris:
    EVERY man, everywhere, is out to objectify women and keep them down.That we’re all evil, stupid, unenlightened frat-boy types who value beauty over brains and are terrified of strong, intelligent women who’s self worth stems from their analytical abilities instead of their looks.That’s the narrative here right?

    No, dear. Not every man. Just douches like you.

    Butts:it always amazes me how much people read into gender politics, a complete non-issue in civilised countries (your country is too religious to be civilised, really) that you blow out of proportion by examining every little detail and finding something to be outraged by.

    Get your facts straight: the US is not uncivilized because of its religiosity; the US is not yet civilized because we don’t have national health care. Duh. But do tell, of what enlightened, civilized country that is totally unaffected by gender politics are you thinking? I would move there immediately. But somehow I suspect that your country does indeed have feminists who would disagree with your assessment.

  82. LC says:

    jennygadget: 2) What does that even mean? How can something be “just” a joke? That’s like claiming “it was just words!” to people that are arguing said words were inappropriate.

    Near as I can tell from the comment thread on the linked video, the “joke” is that by calling it “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” he tricked people into thinking it was going to be nothing but hot chicks, and instead they had to listen to them talk about their politics. Thus he subverted frat boy sexism by using it to make people listen to political argument.

    That’s the absolute most generous assumption I can make here, and seems to fit with his repeated appearance in the comments where he talks about his clever title getting him 40-50,000 hits.

  83. Joe says:

    Hey look! Now we can objectify men as well. Granted, it’s still men doing the objectifying, but it’s being done nonetheless

    http://www.queerty.com/photos-the-cute-shirtless-dudes-of-occupy-wall-street-20111012/

  84. Florence says:

    Sam: Phillip Seymour Homan and Steve Buschimi’s love child

    This is actually a really good description of my husband.

  85. Politicalguineapig says:

    Have I said before how much liberal frat-bros annoy me? They do. I expect conservative men to be douche-bags, but these guys are supposed to think once in a while.
    If I ever meet a dude who brings up evolutionary psych in real life, I will punch him in the face.

  86. Alison says:

    Florence: This is actually a really good description of my husband.

    I assume you mean looks-wise, but damn, that baby would be an awesome actor too, if genetics have anything to do with it. Indie film casting agents would be salivating! :)

    Also, re: the hypothetical “Hot Men of OWS” – it’s a wee bit different since men have not historically (and presently, and futurely [yay word coining!]) been reduced to nothing but their looks; been treated like shit if they don’t properly match up to conventional beauty standards; been *still* treated like shit even if they do because hey, then you’re just a hot body whose mouth would really be doing better to stop talking and start sucking; been blamed for being sexually assaulted due to being too sexy or been admonished to take sexual assault as a compliment due to being haggard and ugly; been subjected to a constant barrage of HERE ARE 80 MILLION THINGS YOU MUST DO TO BE PRETTY often accompanied by pictures of celebrities who are already conventionally beautiful but have still been photoshopped because NO ONE is EVER beautiful enough; etc etc etc so on and so forth FOREVER.

    Objectification isn’t cool, in general. But there is a gigantic yawning sexist chasm between the objectification of women and that of men. It’s like when white people cry about someone calling them a honky or something and claim that “racism” against white people is totes the biggest problem in race relations these days. Sure, honky isn’t a nice thing to be called, but you can shut right the fuck up if you’re going to say it’s anywhere in the vicinity of the ballpark of a POC being called the n-word.

    Context! It’s good for you.

  87. AngelinaJolieinHackers says:

    Long time lurker, first time poster. Foremost, feministe.us thank you for your services. Secondly, anyone who doesn’t think this is misogynistic trash, get off this site. Don’t comment on threads like these because it just makes me lose time. Seriously, if I wanted to hear your opinion I would go to 4Chan.

  88. Fat Steve says:

    Sam: Its very well documented that men simply just cannot help but sexualize women. Males with an aptitude to look at women and identify viable, fertile partners who yield offspring had a greater chance to pass along their genetic code to following generations. We are talking way back in the cave man/ primitive neandental/ homoerectus days. Over thousands of years, males with a greater aptitude of essentially looking at a women and guessing “If I fuck her, she will yield offspring with my genetics” passed along their genes more frequently than males who have an aptitude to, lets say, build and decorate a nicer cave.

    If this dude had been out fucking instead of creating dumbass websites, he wouldn’t have been mentioned here.

    Of course, I have that evolutionary urge to bang nearly every woman that I have some sort of a connection with (i.e. I find them physically attractive and they seem to like me,) but somehow I have managed to remain faithful to the same woman for nearly 20 years. So clearly that urge is not that powerful. I don’t think being married to someone means they are the only person who you find sexually attractive (and I say ‘I don’t think’ because it’s up to the individual how they define marriage.) For me it’s about unconditional love for someone and caring more about their happiness than your own. So shortly after I get that ‘evolutionary urge’ I immediately think about how that would make my wife feel if she found out, and the thought of her in tears gets rid of any possible sexual fantasy I could imagine before I even imagine it.

    If I wasn’t married, I’m sure that I would not be attempting to bang every woman who I had a connection with anyway, as that so-called urge, can go away in an instant. Like if I was single and an attractive woman was talking with me in a way which suggested she kind of thought I was attractive too, I’d be thinking “I’d love to take her home”, but if she said something like ‘Glenn Beck is my personal hero because everything he says is true,’ I would immediately lose that urge. That urge is a very weak thing so if you have to follow it everytime you feel it, you must be a really weak person.

  89. Rich says:

    Went to the Occupy Boston movement today and was impressed by how orderly and calm it really is! Sites like this dude’s site only do a disservice to women and the entire OWS movement. If you are a man and find that site “funny” just think if that was your sister (or girlfriend, friend, etc.) posted online for all to gawk at.
    Doesn’t feel too “funny” now, does it?

  90. Fat Steve says:

    LC: Near as I can tell from the comment thread on the linked video, the “joke” is that by calling it “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” he tricked people into thinking it was going to be nothing but hot chicks, and instead they had to listen to them talk about their politics. Thus he subverted frat boy sexism by using it to make people listen to political argument.

    That’s the absolute most generous assumption I can make here, and seems to fit with his repeated appearance in the comments where he talks about his clever title getting him 40-50,000 hits.

    Then why didn’t he just call it ‘Megan Fox Shows Her Vagina’ and have interviews with people of all sexes and shapes?
    Besides, your reading doesn’t reflect the facts, his original claim was that he “commented to a friend, “Wow, seeing all those super smart hot chicks at the protest makes me want to be there.” He came up with the name before the video was made. So his ‘clever title’ got him 40,000 hits from people who saw the tumbler site then managed to click on the video with their free hand. What a fucking subversion, getting guys who wanted to see young attractive women to do so by calling them ‘hot chicks.’ I find the term ‘chick’ extremely offensive, and didn’t even really think it was in common parlance these days. I remember when I was hanging out with a college friend, a few years after we graduated and he asked me ‘does your chick still let you smoke weed?’ and I was like ‘you mean my wife ?’ and he’s like ‘yeah, is she cool with it?’, not even noticing my admonition. So, being the type who prefers positive reinforcement to lecturing, I was just like ‘yeah she likes smoking too.’ To which his response was ‘you’re lucky to have found a chick who lets you smoke weed.’ and me being me just sighed and said ‘yeah, I am really lucky to have such a fantastic wife.’

    I had never found the word so degrading and demeaning before, but it’s a way of taking away your personhood, and it’s in my opinion the worst thing about this site/video, so I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned here yet. Although I suppose I can understand because a) it goes without saying that it’s a demeaning word and b)there are so many other douchy things about the guy’s site.

  91. Fat Steve says:

    Correction to the above, I should have put my reply as ‘do you mean my wife ? as that’s what I actually said, I just didn’t want to put her name in the post but I realize the space between the word ‘wife’ and the question mark didn’t convey that, and made me sound as bad as him.

  92. Fat Steve says:

    somehow the brackets I’m using are causing me to say the wrong thing again…probably some html thing as I was using the ‘less than’ and ‘greater than’ marks for brackets (now I realize I must have gotten it right the first time.)

    so to put it straight my reply to him was “you mean my wife {her name}?”

  93. jennygadget says:

    “men have not historically…been blamed for being sexually assaulted due to being too sexy…”

    yeah, I just looorve how Mr. Douche’s defenders have completely ignored this excessively salient point in favor of defending their dudebro’s actions.

    Even better, one of their fave methods of defending him has been to employ the same tired “the menz! they just can’t help it!” rape apology bullshit. Because simply objectifying female protestors didn’t do enough to put women in danger. No, they knew that in order to really go the distance they had to perpetuate the same crap that gets used to explain away physical assault.

    I hope Jill doesn’t mind my repeating a good chunk of the post that is sitting right up there at the top of the page but I think it’s clear some people skipped over this part. And it bears repeating anyway.

    “…women at OWS are actually being groped and assaulted by creeps and criminals. ….[I]t sounds like protestors have reported sexual assaults immediately, but there’s a vibe that when it comes to other crimes, protestors should…[use] the force of public opinion to change bad behavior.

    …[W]hen you get dude-bros like Steven Greenstreet in the mix …“public opinion” shifts because the public shifts. It gets easier to brush off the complaints…. I mean, if it’s totally ok to go all voyeur and photograph hot chicks without their consent…why get mad at a dude who takes it a step further…?”

    How in the hell is “…we simply cannot control all of our perverse, animal instincts” a defense of Mr. Douche’s actions BUT NOT ALSO a defense of physical assault?

    If you think Mr. Douche is not actually being harmful argue that. If you think it doesn’t matter that he is being harmful, own up to being a massive asshole. If you think there is some magic line where that defense makes things ok on one side but not on the other, explain to me how the kind of assholes that need to be “tricked” into watching pretty girls talk politics will magically know where that line is? Explain to me how all those “hot women” are supposed to know that “the force of public opinion” will be on their side if when that line is crossed. Especially when public opinion consists of not just Mr. Douche but also of people defending his “right” to be a douche at their expense?

    tl;dr

    Mr. Douche and minions friends: fighting for justice! U R DOIN IT WRNG!

  94. jennygadget says:

    er, bad tag :p

    tl;dr

    Mr. Douche and minions friends: fighting for justice! U R DOIN IT WRNG!

  95. Chelsea says:

    Sam, you seem like a well-meaning guy, but your arguments need a lot of work. You do realize what you’re saying boils down to “It’s in our nature to be douchebags so you can’t blame us for that!”

    First, that’s a simplistic view of biology and evolution. And second, no. You conveniently ignore anything other than heterosexual male sexuality. Guess what, women are attracted to people too. A lot of us are attracted to men. And yet male objectification doesn’t seem to be holding you guys back, does it? I wonder why that is…

    You need to seriously brush up on your historical and cultural context here.

  96. Fat Steve says:

    Chelsea:
    Sam, you seem like a well-meaning guy, but your arguments need a lot of work.You do realize what you’re saying boils down to “It’s in our nature to be douchebags so you can’t blame us for that!”

    First, that’s a simplistic view of biology and evolution.And second, no.You conveniently ignore anything other than heterosexual male sexuality.Guess what, women are attracted to people too.A lot of us are attracted to men.And yet male objectification doesn’t seem to be holding you guys back, does it?I wonder why that is…

    You need to seriously brush up on your historical and cultural context here.

    I agree with you that Sam’s argument is simplistic, as is pretty much everything he has written here, but it is in my experience broadly accurate to say that men seem to have the urge to empty their testicles far more then women have the urge to be stimulated sexually.
    I know this is piss-poor anecdotal evidence but nearly every lesbian couple that I have seen breakup has done so because they stopped having sex/enjoying sex with each other. Almost every gay couple I have seen break up has done so because one of the partners is having sex with other dudes (or done it just once- if a certain friend is to be believed, which his ex-bf doesn’t.)

  97. Li says:

    Fat Steve: I know this is piss-poor anecdotal evidence but nearly every lesbian couple that I have seen breakup has done so because they stopped having sex/enjoying sex with each other. Almost every gay couple I have seen break up has done so because one of the partners is having sex with other dudes (or done it just once- if a certain friend is to be believed, which his ex-bf doesn’t.)

    You’re right. That is indeed piss-poor anecdotal evidence. Can we please go back to the part where we pretended queer people didn’t exist in order to make our sexist assertions about men and women’s sex drives? It’s much less annoying.

  98. rayuela23 says:

    What I just love about this comment thread is that it has allowed me to confirm my secretly held conceit that I can tell an MRA dudebro just by the language he uses.

    There’s a kind of strange, overwrought, sulky aggression…. but the real telling sign is a lot of ‘sophisticated’ vocabulary mashed in very tight without much respect for what any of said sophisticated words, in fact, mean.

    “Cognitive dissonance. I don’t think that means what you think it means.”

  99. EG says:

    it is in my experience broadly accurate to say that men seem to have the urge to empty their testicles far more then women have the urge to be stimulated sexually.

    Whether or not that’s true, though, and I think that the differences that have been found have far less to do with evolution than with social norms (slut-shaming, keeping girls/women in ignorance about what can get them off, etc.) has nothing to do with how sexual attraction is expressed. There’s nothing encoded in anybody’s DNA or wiring that causes “I am attracted to you” to lead directly to “I shall mock you, condescend to you, treat you like you’re a fucktoy, and generally give you grief.”

    Whether or not I want to have sex as frequently as any given man over the course of several years, I’ve certainly wanted to have sex with individual men as intensely as is possible to want it, but it never crossed my mind to trick any of them into a video and post it on the web. I just…not only is it a shitty way to behave, I don’t see how it would actually help me get the sex I want. If anything, evolution should select against dickish behavior.

  100. LC says:

    Fat Steve: Then why didn’t he just call it ‘Megan Fox Shows Her Vagina’ and have interviews with people of all sexes and shapes?

    Because this “it was joke” logic is clearly some half-assed attempt to spin it?

    Fat Steve: Besides, your reading doesn’t reflect the facts

    I quite agree. I was merely trying to figure out what it was they were handwaving as “the joke”. By this logic, the whole “I went to check out the hot chicks, and then found them interesting” is actually supposed to be part of the joke – playing the innocent.

    It’s crap and it’s weak, but near as I can figure, that’s the defense they are going for when they say “it was a joke and you didn’t get it”. (Sorry if I gave the impression I actually believe it. I just was trying to show it was weak even if you read it in the most generous way possible.)

  101. Fat Steve says:

    Li: You’re right. That is indeed piss-poor anecdotal evidence. Can we please go back to the part where we pretended queer people didn’t exist in order to make our sexist assertions about men and women’s sex drives? It’s much less annoying.

    I used the terms “in my experience” “broadly accurate” and only said that men “seem” “to have the urge to empty their testicles far more then women have the urge to be stimulated sexually.” That is how it SEEMS to me. I made it perfectly clear that I could be totally wrong about a majority of the people in the world as I made it perfectly clear I was talking only about people I have had in depth conversations with about sex, a group that constitutes a minute percentage of people on this earth. So no sexist assertions were made, as no assertions were made. I merely provided that specific anecdote (which I labeled as piss poor,) due to Chelsea’s complaints of hetero-normativity, which I saw as valid.

  102. Fat Steve says:

    EG: If anything, evolution should select against dickish behavior.

    I think dickish behavior is one of the best arguments FOR evolution, I mean, what kind of a creator would think that was a good idea. Though, as I write this, I’m thinking of the god of the Bible/Old Testament, and all the dickish things he did, so I suppose it could just as easily be an argument for the claim that god created man in his own image.

  103. Kaz says:

    @Fat Steve-

    Let’s not forget culture, shall we? The trope that women want sex less than men is pervasive. Ergo, if you observe women wanting sex less than men, jumping straight to “biology!” is a pretty big mistake to make, because in modern Western society both men and women are told from early on that this is how it is and if they don’t fit into this model they ought to try to make themselves. Note modern Western up there, because this is culturally dependent – was it back in Victorian times where the belief was that women were sex-driven fiends!! and men were rational beings who had to take control of their sexuality for them?

    Also, I find it fascinating how people will complain about us being misandrist or unfair to men but then use arguments which I think are way, way more hateful and belittling of men than anything I’ve seen on most feminist blogs. The whole “but it’s evolution!!” argument? I do men the respect of assuming that they can control whatever urges they have, that even if there /is/ some biological hardwiring going on (which I really, really have to doubt) they’re capable of stomping on that in times and places where following the impulses in question would be inappropriate. But often people who would call me misandrist claim that men are totally at the mercy of their impulses and utterly unable to control themselves. Bzuh? How is this anything but nasty and offensive? And how do they not realise that the logical consequence of that shit isn’t so much “so therefore we can’t criticise them!” but “if X group is genuinely unable to keep themselves from harming others, then we have to take measures to prevent them from doing so” – something I seriously doubt people like Sam want to advocate for?

  104. Fat Steve says:

    Kaz:
    @Fat Steve-

    Let’s not forget culture, shall we? The trope that women want sex less than men is pervasive. Ergo, if you observe women wanting sex less than men, jumping straight to “biology!” is a pretty big mistake to make, because in modern Western society both men and women are told from early on that this is how it is and if they don’t fit into this model they ought to try to make themselves. Note modern Western up there, because this is culturally dependent – was it back in Victorian times where the belief was that women were sex-driven fiends!! and men were rational beings who had to take control of their sexuality for them?

    Also, I find it fascinating how people will complain about us being misandrist or unfair to men but then use arguments which I think are way, way more hateful and belittling of men than anything I’ve seen on most feminist blogs. The whole “but it’s evolution!!” argument? I do men the respect of assuming that they can control whatever urges they have, that even if there /is/ some biological hardwiring going on (which I really, really have to doubt) they’re capable of stomping on that in times and places where following the impulses in question would be inappropriate. But often people who would call me misandrist claim that men are totally at the mercy of their impulses and utterly unable to control themselves. Bzuh? How is this anything but nasty and offensive? And how do they not realise that the logical consequence of that shit isn’t so much “so therefore we can’t criticise them!” but “if X group is genuinely unable to keep themselves from harming others, then we have to take measures to prevent them from doing so” – something I seriously doubt people like Sam want to advocate for?

    Kaz, re-read what I said. I put the term ‘evolutionary urge’ in quotes because I don’t necessarily believe it’s all about biological evolution. Things evolve due to social mores, and all the other things you mention, so I can’t disagree with anything you said.

    In fact, the only reason I used the term ‘evolutionary’ was because I was arguing against Sam’s point that we are forced to act in a certain way due to our biological evolution, and making the point (by giving the example of myself and how these urges have never caused me to be unfaithful,) that even IF they are (and I, like you don’t necessarily believe in much of those theories,) those urges are not these powerful forces he describes, and can be put out of one’s mind merely by having a modicum of self control. Which seems to be exactly what you’re saying, so I don’t see where we disagree.

  105. Fat Steve says:

    P.S. I do disagree with you one thing. I think it’s the very definition of hypocrisy to one one hand claim that feminists treat all men like potential rapists and the on the other hand basically argue that they are hard-wired to be potential rapists as they are unable to control their sexual urges due to evolution/natural selection. So, if we disagree on anything it’s your description of that hypocrisy as ‘fascinating.’ Especially when a word like ‘lame’ or ‘douchy’ would be a lot more accurate.

  106. Tony says:

    I appreciate hot chicks too, and I’m a big supporter of OWS, but I think i’ll pass on the video…

    I think Steven’s behavior as described is problematic in multiple ways. First, where he put up a false pretense in order to get interviews from women. If he really respected these women, he wouldn’t have tried to extract anything from them under dishonest pretenses. That alone labels him a douchebag.

    Secondly, where he doesn’t acknowledge that his dishonesty is problematic, and tries to act as if he’s being sympathetic and has good intentions. It’s hard to tell if he’s really convinced himself of these things out of a remarkable dearth of self-awareness, or if he’s just doing this to defend himself from the criticism he’s gotten. Based on the obvious title, I would think the latter, but judging by some of the posts in this thread by his so called friends and defenders, I’m not so sure.

    And thirdly, because he attempts to legitimize the notion that whatever a woman may be doing, she will at some random time be valued more for her body and perceived attractiveness than her thoughts and beliefs. I have no knowledge, control, or desire to censure anybody’s private thoughts, and I don’t think anyone here does. But it’s blatantly sexist if society sends a message to women that no matter how hard they’ve worked at something, thought about something, educated themselves, or feel about something, at the end of the day some random jerkoffs on the internet will primarily see them as a piece of meat. And that is exactly what creating a site like this does. There are already plenty of venues in our society for men to find whacking material and willing, attractive women. Public objectification should be confined those areas where it is publicly acknowledged and wanted by both sides/partners. Objectification outside those parameters should face social sanction. So if this site has been received positively on other sites like FB, then it’s even more disturbing.

  107. Li says:

    Steve, reread what you just said about using the term “broadly accurate”. I mean, if you say something is “broadly accurate”, I think it’s pretty fair for me to read that as you making an assertion about men and women outside of your tiny minority anecdata sample. And, you know, you’re entitled to your opinion yada yada and I also am entitled to point out that that opinion is total heterosexist rubbish that reiterates dull-arse tropes about Lesbian Bed Death and queer men sucking at monogamy. And, you know, here’s a question? What purpose does you adding this supposedly-perfectly-clear-it’s-just-my-opinion-and-thus-you’re-being-mean-by-linking-it-to-the-context-of-the-thread-in-which-i-made-it commentary serve within this discussion anyway?

    Like, if you don’t really think it’s relevant why are you saying it?

  108. Fat Steve says:

    Li:
    Steve, reread what you just said about using the term “broadly accurate”. I mean, if you say something is “broadly accurate”, I think it’s pretty fair for me to read that as you making an assertion about men and women outside of your tiny minority anecdata sample. And, you know, you’re entitled to your opinion yada yada and I also am entitled to point out that that opinion is total heterosexist rubbish that reiterates dull-arse tropes about Lesbian Bed Death and queer men sucking at monogamy. And, you know, here’s a question? What purpose does you adding this supposedly-perfectly-clear-it’s-just-my-opinion-and-thus-you’re-being-mean-by-linking-it-to-the-context-of-the-thread-in-which-i-made-it commentary serve within this discussion anyway?

    Like, if you don’t really think it’s relevant why are you saying it?

    I said it was broadly accurate “in my experience” that it “seems” to be that way. I obviously didn’t explain myself well. It’s very early and I’ve been up all night writing a proposal. (with the occasional break to read Feministe and the Guardian.) If I worded it badly to the point where it offended you, I certainly apologize as that was not my intention. I just hope that I did a better job wording the proposal I’ve been working on, because my life kind of depends on it (well, my rent and bills and food depend on it.)

  109. Fat Steve says:

    Li:

    Like, if you don’t really think it’s relevant why are you saying it?

    It’s not up to me to decide if it’s relevant. It’s my experience, I’m giving it, and you can decide whether it’s relevant or not. I would much prefer you give me counter examples from your own experience rather than just basically calling me a shithead for sharing.

  110. Tony says:

    On a more lighthearted note, far right, second to last row.

  111. Ross Wolfe says:

    This website really belies all the anarchafeminist trappings of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I am a Marxist who is generally unsympathetic to identity politics and third-wave feminism (more of an August Bebel, Aleksandra Kollontai, and Juliet Mitchell guy), but this is an obviously sexist/chauvinist display.

    A rather pointed Marxist analysis of the OWS movement so far that you might find interesting:

    “Reflections on Occupy Wall Street: What it Represents, Its Prospects, and Its Deficiencies

  112. violet says:

    Think I’ve just worked out a solution for ol’ Creepy Steve. Set him up with Cat Marnell.

    They get to complain to each other about how noone realises they’re being “ironic”, and the rest of us can get on with more important stuff.

  113. m Andrea says:

    You might remember Laura Logan. She was the reporter who was brutally sexually assaulted by over a 100 men who were demonstrating for freedom.

    When I see men, especially a mob of them, please understand that I do not see humans, I see dogs.

  114. Junaid says:

    violet:
    Think I’ve just worked out a solution for ol’ Creepy Steve.Set him up with Cat Marnell.

    They get to complain to each other about how noone realises they’re being “ironic”, and the rest of us can get on with more important stuff.

    Right, because complaining about a viral video on the Internet is right up there with authoritarian dictatorships and the financial crisis.

    Idiot.

  115. Alison says:

    m Andrea:
    You might remember Laura Logan.She was the reporter who was brutally sexually assaulted by over a 100 men who were demonstrating for freedom.

    When I see men, especially a mob of them, please understand that I do not see humans, I see dogs.

    Um. Yeah, that’s fucked up.

    I’ve been assaulted both by men known to me and by strangers. I’ve known many many women who were assaulted, some repeatedly, some to the point of major, lifelong injury. I’ve been stalked (and will likely be again when he gets out of his 17433rd jail sentence), I’ve been harassed, so on and so forth.

    There are days I do not have a very high opinion of men in general.

    But to call all men inhuman? To label them all, off the bat, as dogs? Not okay. I mean, shit…if you refuse to see them as human beings and want to denigrate them as all just animals, then how can you expect anything more than vicious, uncaring selfish behavior? You do *want* men in general to behave better toward others, yes? Writing them off as non-human would imply you think there is no hope for that…so what, pray tell, would your next step be?

  116. Junaid says:

    I find it hilarious that people actually think the author is outraged. She’s not. This is the same thing that goes on in MRA sites. False outrage to increase page ratings and continue this perpetual online war between sexes. It’s the best way to make your site popular. Jezebel did the same thing with the Daily Show hoopla.

    Not only that, they’re accusing any men (and women) who don’t agree as undercover misogynists. Oh, and to really put salt on the wound, those men are probably disgusting creeps who can never have a girlfriend.

    Okay, so the men can’t get girlfriends. Are you done with the belittling process? Would you also like then to email your pictures so you can laugh at them? I assume that was the point of posting the guy’s picture with the thread and with weird statements like, “May he never be laid again.”

    I don’t even think you know why you’re being confrontational. You just know you have to because there are men around. And they *gasp* disagree strongly with you.

  117. Li says:

    Junaid: Not only that, they’re accusing any men (and women) who don’t agree as undercover misogynists.

    Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re undercover.

  118. Q Grrl says:

    Fat Steve:

    Slight drift, but if lesbians are leaving each other (breaking up pairings) because of a *lack* of sex, doesn’t that actually imply that they still want sex? I mean, if they didn’t have a sex drive, wouldn’t they just stay together? To me, it just sounds like your friends weren’t sexually compatible anymore. Which happens. We’re human, ya know?

  119. Pingback: Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street!

  120. Pingback: Even activism can’t stop misogyny » New Black Woman

  121. ElleRapp says:

    I think we need to put our faith in our activist communities – and specifically the Wall St. protesters here – to be able to effectively (and more productively, holistically, and respectfully) handle sexual assault, as opposed to relying on the police to enter into our communities. There are some very interesting resources on this including: http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/0985_revolution-starts-at-home.pdf and http://www.phillyspissed.net/

  122. EG says:

    ElleRapp:
    I think we need to put our faith in our activist communities – and specifically the Wall St. protesters here – to be able to effectively (and more productively, holistically, and respectfully) handle sexual assault, as opposed to relying on the police to enter into our communities. There are some very interesting resources on this including: http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/0985_revolution-starts-at-home.pdf and http://www.phillyspissed.net/

    I’m not convinced. Leftist activist communities do not have a great track record when it comes to prioritizing women’s rights and safety or taking their male members to task for violating them. Neither do the cops, of course, but I’m not going to put faith in either group, and I wouldn’t want to see either group pressuring assaulted women about how and to whom they want to report the assault.

  123. Sheelzebub says:

    EG: I’m not convinced.Leftist activist communities do not have a great track record when it comes to prioritizing women’s rights and safety or taking their male members to task for violating them.Neither do the cops, of course, but I’m not going to put faith in either group, and I wouldn’t want to see either group pressuring assaulted women about how and to whom they want to report the assault.

    Seconded.

  124. LC says:

    EG: I’m not convinced. Leftist activist communities do not have a great track record when it comes to prioritizing women’s rights and safety or taking their male members to task for violating them. Neither do the cops, of course, but I’m not going to put faith in either group, and I wouldn’t want to see either group pressuring assaulted women about how and to whom they want to report the assault.

    Thirded.

  125. PrettyAmiable says:

    Fourthed!

  126. jennygadget says:

    I’m not going to put faith in either group, and I wouldn’t want to see either group pressuring assaulted women about how and to whom they want to report the assault.

    srsly. esp as the op acknowledged that there are problems with going to the police, and did not come out trying to lecture victims on what they should do, to come and say in response to that that “we” (which one assumes includes victims) should “put our faith in our activist communities” isn’t just telling victims how they should respond to their assault, it could easily be read by many victims as being told not to rock the boat over something as minor as their own autonomy. That’s certainly how it came across to me.

  127. Lins says:

    Love you Thomas MacAulay Millar

  128. Barbara says:

    Er, can some of you stop calling this as the “new black woman?” I’m a black woman, and it’s offensive when folks who are not black make such comparison. If you’re not black, you will never know what it’s like being black in this racist society.

    “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street!
    10.17.2011 at 8:17 am
    Even activism can’t stop misogyny » New Black Woman
    10.17.2011 at 10:42 am “

  129. Jadey says:

    Barbara:
    Er, can some of you stop calling this as the “new black woman?” I’m a black woman, and it’s offensive when folks who are not black make such comparison. If you’re not black, you will never know what it’s like being black in this racist society.

    “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street! 10.17.2011 at 8:17 am
    Even activism can’t stop misogyny » New Black Woman 10.17.2011 at 10:42 am ”

    The “New Black Woman” link is automatically created as a track-back to this website because they linked to Feministe in their post on the subject. I think the site is run by a black woman, which is the reason for the name, but she did not make a comparison about black women for this particular topic.

  130. Lurkerina says:

    For a respectful take on protester portraits, take a look at this:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/macdawg/6249761927/in/photostream/

    You notice there are lots of different types of people, presented equally and without comment other than name, sometimes age, and where they’re from.

    I think this is beautiful.

  131. Chris says:

    Relevant.

  132. Pingback: THE 6TH FLOOR BLOG: THE UNDERAPPRECIATED HUNKS OF OCCUPY WALL STREET » OCCUPY, WALL, STREET, WHAT, GOLDMAN, STREETA » DAILY NEWS

  133. Leah says:

    Glad you posted this. In addition, Steve makes rape jokes about it on his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/#!/middleofmayhem

  134. Drewsifer says:

    Oof. What a waste of time. Too much constant hacking at one another and accusing every one else of various differing forms of privilege… is all it really is. Nothing gets done, no one gets informed and next week it gets done all over again.

  135. Grant says:

    I found the unfortunately titled ‘how chicks of OWS’ quite lovely, I could not identify even a touch of sexism about that video.

    In fact, the video demonstrated some of the many reasons why different types of women are so beautiful.

    I think if he had Steven had titled it something different he would not have got the same viral coverage as he has now.

    But I think he knew that.

  136. Pingback: #OccupyWallSt Roundup, Day 33 - NYTimes.com

  137. L says:

    Grant: I found the unfortunately titled ‘how chicks of OWS’ quite lovely, I could not identify even a touch of sexism about that video.

    That might be because you’re not judged on your looks 24/7. I don’t know, maybe.

    Grant: In fact, the video demonstrated some of the many reasons why different types of women are so beautiful.

    Puke. I am so so tired of straight men assuming that we care what they find attractive or beautiful. Women/girls are taught from the get-go to place every ounce of self worth on whether they’re deemed ‘fuckable’ by straight men, and I’m sick and tired of it.

  138. adele says:

    I think if he had Steven had titled it something different he would not have got the same viral coverage as he has now.

    I don’t see how this is relevant. The movement would be better off without the kind of people attracted by this kind of ploy.

  139. Rich says:

    L: That might be because you’re not judged on your looks 24/7. I don’t know, maybe.

    Puke. I am so so tired of straight men assuming that we care what they find attractive or beautiful. Women/girls are taught from the get-go to place every ounce of self worth on whether they’re deemed ‘fuckable’ by straight men, and I’m sick and tired of it.

    Right on!

  140. Politicalguineapig says:

    I kind of sympathize with M Andrea, though I think she’s wrong on a galactic level about many other things. Straight men are conditioned to have a stronger bond with their friends than with their significant others, and they tend to exhibit classic pack behavior when out and about. If a bar’s crowd or a music scene or a protest tilts heavily male, I will have second, third and fourth thoughts about going there. To a straight man, his friends matter more than any random woman he encounters, and he will not think twice about joining in on any harmful behavior that his friends instigate.
    On a slight note, I’m wondering if a recent attack on a pedal pub about two-three blocks away from a local OWS protest was instigated by protestors, random hoodlums or people looking to discredit the protestors.

  141. Garrett says:

    The sort of behavior on this thread is disheartening. I am yet another liberal male who thinks articles and threads like this undermine the feminist movement. Had I seen this video separately, I would never have considered it objectifying in any way.

    What bothers me more is the subsequent bashing of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you as a ‘douchebro’ or whatever the hell you call them. But I guess what I think doesn’t matter, because I’m just another Steve right?

    P.S. what’s the big deal? It’s not like he offered them coffee

  142. L says:

    Garrett: The sort of behavior on this thread is disheartening. I am yet another liberal male who thinks articles and threads like this undermine the feminist movement. Had I seen this video separately, I would never have considered it objectifying in any way.

    Really? You wouldn’t? So the taping of women without their knowledge and consent with the purpose of creating a jerk off site for you and your buddies is Totally Not Objectification? There is a difference between being attracted to someone and objectifying them, LEARN IT.

    Also, if you don’t think that the constant objectification and sexualization of women everywhere forever is a worthy topic of discussion, I would suggest that you stop calling yourself a progressive/liberal.

  143. james says:

    “So the taping of women without their knowledge and consent with the purpose of creating a jerk off site for you and your buddies is Totally Not Objectification? There is a difference between being attracted to someone and objectifying them, LEARN IT.”

    Come on, that’s not what objectification means. Objectification is when you treat someone just as an instrument for sexual gratification, and ignore their personhood. But that’s not what the site is doing. If it were just random pictures of ‘Hot Chicks’ that would be objectification – they’re just meat, like in porn or advertising. But HCOOWS explicitly focuses on their political committments and intellect – so not only are they hot, but we also know they’re also passionate and knowledgable about the whole financial controversy thing.

    The one thing you can’t accuse the site of is objectification. What people are complaining about are men being attracted to hot women. Now I can’t see why we can’t appreciate attractive women and be interested in their protesting the bankers bailing people out.

  144. Doctress Julia says:

    AAAND, here’s the mansplainer himself, ‘splaining to us laydeez what objectification is. As if he has ANY CLUE what it’s like. And so it goes. IBTP.

  145. Doctress Julia says:

    ‘Occupy Wall Street is getting increasingly misogynist, and the white dudebros are up in arms, defending themselves against those mean old feminists who hate rape jokes and objectification of women. Also, “committees” are created to help women determine whether or not their sexual assaults are worth reporting to the police.

    La plus ca change.’ -tinfoil hattie

  146. PrettyAmiable says:

    james: Now I can’t see why we can’t appreciate attractive women and be interested in their protesting the bankers bailing people out.

    That’s not what happened. What happened is you tricked someone into participating in something and only valued their opinion because they conform to a patriarchy-informed opinion of what’s hot. It’s sexist. It’s disgustingly sexist. And if you don’t value all women as equals, then why the hell should they (we) stand with you on anything else? You don’t stand with us.

  147. Doctress Julia says:

    PrettyAmiable: THIS, and thank you. Agreed, all the way.

  148. Doctress Julia says:

    OT slightly, but:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/19/protester-alleges-she-was-raped-at-%e2%80%98occupy-cleveland%e2%80%99/

    I tried, I really did… can y’all help me? I was all alone in there…

  149. Thomas Wood says:

    Men tend to suck. Myself included.

  150. Pingback: Silencing techniques and the many uses of legal shrinkwrap « skycroeser.net

  151. Ofneverwherelse says:

    Haven’t commented on anything in a while. But this struck a nerve. A lot of the defense reminds me of the pitfalls pointed out in ill doctrines http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html how to tell someone they sound racist video, except in this case its sexism.

    It is possible, even productive, to like a person AND to call them out on that bad thing they did, if you think it was actually a bad thing… which seems to be the problem for the defenders here.

    Oh, hippie / anarcho-bros…

  152. L says:

    Fuck I wrote a whole comment and then I lost it. Uggghhhh

    James:

    This loser is ignoring their personhood by subjectively deciding who gets to speak and who doesn’t, according to what he finds attractive. I also find hot women attractive, like he does. However this does not mean that I’m going to go around and film them, and put the video on the internet for all my douche shithead buddies to leer at and marvel at ~*~omgz beauty&brains*~*~. It’s offensive because women can’t win either way: if men around you decide you’re beautiful, that is all that’s important, and everyone is shocked that you can string together a sentence. If you’re not beautiful, you’re not allowed to speak period.

  153. jennygadget says:

    “Had I seen this video separately, I would never have considered it objectifying in any way.

    Well then, it’s a damn good thing for me that “what some random dude on the internets thinks” is not my personal litmus test for what I think is objectifying.

    hint: next time, if you want to sound/be less trolly, try coming up *with actual arguments* rather than just saying “I disagree.” Well, um, good for you. Do you have a *basis* for that disagreement, or is my intellect supposed to just bow to the greater wisdom of your gut simply because you say so?

  154. Patrick A says:

    L: Really? You wouldn’t? So the taping of women without their knowledge and consent with the purpose of creating a jerk off site for you and your buddies is Totally Not Objectification? There is a difference between being attracted to someone and objectifying them, LEARN IT.

    Not to jump on your hyperbole but there may be a couple of assumptions worth examining here.

    The women in question were likely being taped by dozens of other people at the same time, all without their explicit consent. Zuccotti Park is bristling with cameras right now, media, police, and the protestors themselves. I’m willing to bet all of the people involved were aware of that fact.

    Second, can you produce a man who finds either the video or the Tumblr “jerk-off material?” I can’t, and I’m willing to bet you can’t either.

    Finally, the women I saw in that video were engaged, intelligent, and passionate about what they were doing; those interviewed were clearly happy to be talking about it. I’d be glad to know, work with, or fight alongside all of them. Is that “hot”? Absolutely. But physical/sexual attraction is the least important aspect of that.

    There’s probably more we could debate here, particularly about the essentialism of your idea of the male gaze, but I don’t really have the time. I agree the guy used a misleading title to increase visibility (to good effect, clearly) but if the video was a failure, I’m very much looking forward to examples of success.

  155. L says:

    Patrick, read my comment at 154.

    The essentialism of my idea of the male gaze? What is that supposed to mean?

    How is physical/sexual attraction the least important aspect of that, when only the subjectively physically and sexually attractive women were allowed to speak? I would call the physical/sexual attraction the most important part, since it seems to be the one criteria for being chosen?

    Why does it surprise you that these women were passionate and intelligent? Would you also be thrilled to work alongside women you didn’t find particularly fuckable, but had the same intelligence and passion?

    Sure there were lots of cameras there. But if I thought that someone was interviewing me because they cared about what I had to say, then found that all they actually cared about was what I looked like, I would not be pleased. The point is that as women, we are valued for our looks and nothing else.

  156. L says:

    Also,

    Patrick A: I agree the guy used a misleading title to increase visibility

    Why is everyone bringing up the title? I never said that he should have picked a different title, because the title is completely appropriate for what this site and video is. The title tells us exactly what it is, which is objectifying women at OWS. If it’s not objectification, then why did he just put pictures up on the Tumblr, without any quotes, bios, etc?

  157. Betina says:

    Sigh. Not a dudebro by any means, but quite frankly this is not a good piece of writing.

    Jill, and other commenters, some of Steven’s friends are coming here to defend his character because you are insulting, overtly and directly, his character: for example, “I do think men who make “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” tumblrs and videos are stupid, unenlightened fratboy types.”

    So while the argument that his character would not make a sexist video any less sexist is entirely valid, Steven as a person is being constantly insulted in this thread, as are all people here defending him (“douchebros coming to defend Steve.”)

    Though of course I understand that “intent” doesn’t matter if you’re offending somebody, you’re way beyond criticising the offensive material per se and constantly, persistently and obviously insulting these people personally. Surely they can defend his intent and personality if you made it a subject by insulting his character?

    I’ve never seen this video by the way, and I’m not particularly fond of it. I also don’t agree with the person who said yadda yadda biological wiring yadda yadda, or everybody who defended him. The post per se hasn’t swayed me either way. It doesn’t really discuss the video itself.

    • Jill says:

      Jill, and other commenters, some of Steven’s friends are coming here to defend his character because you are insulting, overtly and directly, his character: for example, “I do think men who make “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” tumblrs and videos are stupid, unenlightened fratboy types.”

      So while the argument that his character would not make a sexist video any less sexist is entirely valid, Steven as a person is being constantly insulted in this thread, as are all people here defending him (“douchebros coming to defend Steve.”)

      Though of course I understand that “intent” doesn’t matter if you’re offending somebody, you’re way beyond criticising the offensive material per se and constantly, persistently and obviously insulting these people personally. Surely they can defend his intent and personality if you made it a subject by insulting his character?

      At what point, though, do we get to infer character from someone’s actions? For example, posting photos of me on Twitter and making comments that basically amount to “You’re asking for it”? Or calling women “fucking cunts“?

  158. Betina says:

    Although, alas, he has acted like a moron about it too.

  159. L says:

    Betina: “I do think men who make “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” tumblrs and videos are stupid, unenlightened fratboy types.”

    But….they are stupid, unenlightened, fratboy types.

  160. Patrick A says:

    L:

    The essentialism of my idea of the male gaze? What is that supposed to mean?

    How is physical/sexual attraction the least important aspect of that, when only the subjectively physically and sexually attractive women were allowed to speak? I would call the physical/sexual attraction the most important part, since it seems to be the one criteria for being chosen?

    Why does it surprise you that these women were passionate and intelligent? Would you also be thrilled to work alongside women you didn’t find particularly fuckable, but had the same intelligence and passion?

    Sure there were lots of cameras there. But if I thought that someone was interviewing me because they cared about what I had to say, then found that all they actually cared about was what I looked like, I would not be pleased. The point is that as women, we are valued for our looks and nothing else.

    I should have been less specific. Your commentary above contains multiple essentialisms. In particular, you’re applying a very broad brush to masculine perception.

    To your first point, based on what evidence do you assume the three women who spoke were picked on the basis of their physical/sexual attractiveness? I’m somewhat older than the videographer but all three of them looked like people I do work and collaborate with, who pass on the street of my small college town daily without causing undue congestion due to men stopping to stare at them. By declaring their only criteria for being chosen to participate was their appearance, you’ve demeaned them more than the videographer has.

    Second, where in my previous comment did I say I was “surprised” by their intelligence and passion? Or that their being “fuckable” (your term) was the criteria by which I’d be glad to have them as allies, coworkers, friends? Was it in my (male) name?

    As far as the title, I suspect it did what Greenstreet intended it to do. It stirred up enough Internet controversy to get the video in front of many more eyes than it might have with a less inflammatory one. The video isn’t necessarily art (and we obviously disagree about its intent) but that particular choice was inspired.

    On the basis of my previous post, you’ve made numerous incorrect assumptions based on a highly essentialist view of men. That doesn’t mean everything you’ve said is wrong or the problems don’t exist. However, it might be worth examining how much the model in your head jibes with the situation on a case by case basis rather than trying to fit everything into the same narrow box.

  161. sam says:

    don’t want to get into a big thing but just watched the video to see what the debate is about and had to turn it off. so creepy. what an awful person. (i’m a guy). more than anything it’s dishonest, all these women were lied to. just gross.

  162. Pingback: #OccupyWallSt Roundup, Day 33 | My Blog

  163. dangermouse says:

    IDK how anyone can read that “pretty faces” line and argue that this guy isn’t a scuzzo.

    Pretty much just straight-up overt objectification right there.

  164. Bill Day says:

    I also had the same idea and focused my video on the woman at the protest. Not only are the women attractive but there is something about them that embodies the spirit of the protest better than the men – especially when I hear them chanting “We won’t be Wall Street’s bitch!” Check out my “Girls of Wall Street Protest” at this link: http://youtu.be/jHHZemhhby0

  165. EG says:

    Jill, and other commenters, some of Steven’s friends are coming here to defend his character because you are insulting, overtly and directly, his character

    He’s done things that reflect poorly on his character. If his allegedly sterling character is not being given a fair shot at becoming better known due to him persistently acting like a douchebag by lying to women about the purpose of filming them, objectifying them, putting them up on the internet so men can get off, equating his actions with a woman wearing a dress in public, and making rape jokes, then you should speak to him about that. I’m just calling ’em like I see ’em.

    on what evidence do you assume the three women who spoke were picked on the basis of their physical/sexual attractiveness?




    The…title? Oh, don’t tell me, let me guess–is the title “ironic”? Are we just not getting the amazingly complex irony of some dude calling women “hot chicks”? Is this yet another case of the amazing phenomenon whereby something completely insulting and sexist/racist/homophobic is actually not serious, but for some strange reason, many of the people who have been the target of that kind of bigotry and oppression totally fail to see the difference, probably ’cause they’re just not as enlightened as the white dude who said/did the thing is?

    Ok, you don’t have to bother to make that argument. Consider it made, and now realize it sounded just as stupid as it has the last 5000 times something like this has gone down.

  166. JustAnotherGirl says:

    Generally a forum-lurker, I would just like to toss in my 2 cents here ~

    While it’s obvious that someone can be sexist 100% of the time, anyone can do or say something sexist. I’ve been shocked and disappointed to hear some sexist comments from my own husband, EVEN IF IT WAS INTENDED AS A JOKE.

    Saying “it was just a joke” shouldn’t excuse the behavior, nor should evolution/nature/our culture’s perceptions of men vs women. To an actual woman who deals with being the brunt of these “jokes”, it’s never JUST a joke. ((That should counter any “Steven’s just a guy” comments from the peanut gallery.))

    Let’s say that Steven made a video titled “Fat Chicks of Occupy Wall Street”. They would have just as much a right to be offended as the “hot chicks” do. Even if simply because: why does it matter HOW they look?? Shouldn’t what they have to say matter the most?

    Men do not know what women go through their entire lives (though some try to sympathize). Our own mothers try and “fix” us, boyfriends tell us what to “change for them” and even strangers on the street just seem to delight in commenting on our appearances. It’s not right.

    It’s not enough to be clean, somewhat intelligent and caring… We have to be super models, genii and socially pandering in order to meet everyone’s standards.

    I know that I’m getting into TL;DR length, but it’s hard ignoring something that plagues young girls and women alike, leading to several horrifying conditions (bulimia, anorexia, social disorders, comfort eating, etc.).

    While I do not know Steve, it is very easy for me to dismiss him into the realm of males who should not be allowed near women, simply based on HIS actions and comments. Making videos and comments like his tend to hurt the cause behind them more than anything, as clearly demonstrated here.

    I tried to break it up for reading convenience. Sorry for the almost-essay.

  167. JustAnotherGirl says:

    Edit: I’d just like to point out to any potential-offendees…

    I did this without any cruel name-calling, poop-slinging, cursing or sarcasm. This is my opinion based on all the comments that came before mine; I both agreed and disagreed with many.

    So I am NOT up on my high horse. :P

  168. L says:

    Patrick A: To your first point, based on what evidence do you assume the three women who spoke were picked on the basis of their physical/sexual attractiveness?

    ….You can’t be serious with this question. That’s the whole fucking point of the video and tumblr.

    Patrick A: On the basis of my previous post, you’ve made numerous incorrect assumptions based on a highly essentialist view of men.

    Yeah yeah blah blah. Never made assumptions about all men, only about this particular dipshit. Apparently we’re not allowed to criticize anything a man does, until forever.

    Patrick A: However, it might be worth examining how much the model in your head jibes with the situation on a case by case basis rather than trying to fit everything into the same narrow box.

    Ohhhhh I get it, the male gaze and the utterly shitty way I am treated in public is all in my silly lady head!! Thank you so much Patrick for enlightening me on these important issues, and teaching me all about how I should feel about being treated like am object existing solely for men’s pleasure.

  169. Pingback: Acid Test » The Not-so-hot Knobs of Wall Street

  170. Aubrie says:

    Jesus Christ that man is ugly. No wonder he’s turning to bro-voyeurism. Copping a feel from drunk girls in local bars must not be doing it for him anymore.

  171. Pingback: The Not-so-hot Knobs of Wall Street « Sky Dancing

  172. Martha Syryca says:

    Shade Anderson:
    I know Steve personally, and have for many years… I assure you all Steve was being ironic, playing the part of the foolish frat-boy to get some sniggers from the friends who know him well. The video in question is beautiful, and in no small part because of the beautiful women in it, but also because it gave them a platform to speak, and they spoke well, and bless you all, but I hope this laughable controversy lets more people see it. Because Steve is an artist, and a Documentarian of the first order, and as someone who knows him well, I can say with absolute confidence that you’re sadly mistaken about who and what he is. But that’s typical of snap-judgements, no?

    The fact that outside viewers can’t recognize the supposed irony and sarcasm of the video is a failure of Steve’s skills as a documentarian. We shouldn’t have to know him personally to understand the intended satire.

    Besides that, he completely fails to represent the feminine side of the movement (but that probably goes without saying). I see a bunch of young white female protesters. Oh yeah, and one black girl? Meanwhile, the nights I’ve spent marching at OWS I was alongside older activists, undocumented immigrants, women of every age and color, so on.

    As a woman, I am tired of my opinions being belittled by the attention focused on my appearance; I am tired of men not being treated the same way. I do not need to apologize for taking offense to this video. It is hypocritical for this documentarian to claim he is a feminist and a supporter of sexual equality as he reiterates a misogynistic and superficial view of women. Sad that this video has received so much attention.

  173. Pingback: Feminist Call to Action: Occupy Dudeville | Radfem Hub

  174. Li says:

    Bill Day:
    I also had the same idea and focused my video on the woman at the protest. Not only are the women attractive but there is something about them that embodies the spirit of the protest better than the men – especially when I hear them chanting “We won’t be Wall Street’s bitch!”Check out my “Girls of Wall Street Protest” at this link:[redacted cos i don’t feel like sending people to your gross video]

    Great, now we have fucking copycat misogynists. I mean, did you miss this entire thread?

  175. STEVE MANCHAMPION says:

    Since I am all about the civil rights of hotties and I am a great documentarian feminist, I spend a lot of time doing philanthropy at Diamond Dave’s Hustler Club supporting Bubbles’ college education because she is a MILF, I feel it is a righteous cause. See, I am pro-boobs (as long as they’re not saggy–amirite?!) which means I am very much in favor of the the chicks’ movement (as long as it is gyrating).
    I believe in OWS because exploitation is wrong. I cannot help my monkey brain from legitimizing my erections– IT IS SCIENCE! I really want to hear what OWS hotties say because their tight asses are so hot, but I sure wish they were talking baby talk a little more breathy, so in order to minimize their non-sex-kitten voices, I played muzak over them.
    We need to all band together to overcome oppression (but no fat chicks!). I am an awesome dood, just ask my friends. And don’t go to my fb page cuz that is like way way illegal and a total violation of my privates.
    Why can’t you feminists see that I am just trying to help you!??

  176. JD says:

    jennygadget:
    “Had I seen this video separately, I would never have considered it objectifying in any way.

    Well then,it’s a damn good thing for me that “what some random dude on the internets thinks” is not my personal litmus test for what I think is objectifying.

    hint: next time, if you want to sound/be less trolly, try coming up *with actual arguments* rather than just saying “I disagree.”Well, um, good for you.Do you have a *basis* for that disagreement, or is my intellect supposed to just bow to the greater wisdom of your gut simply because you say so?

    QFT.

    I get so sick and tired of the argument that because some dude did not find something sexist/misogynist, therefore it can’t possibly be sexist/misogynist, and anyone – but especially those who are not men – who thinks it is, is just obviously wrong. Because of course a man’s understanding of something is just naturally right and objective and comprehensive. And the understanding of it by those people who experience sexism day in, day out and who find it sexist somehow just magically counts for less. (Convenient, that.) Because if we took their views seriously for a moment we would have to admit that a man can be wrong about it! When of course the man is always right, and does not need to step back and think “maybe this other person actually knows something I don’t, maybe they are right. Maybe my experience and view of the world are not universal and always right, and someone else’s views and experience are valid, and I should listen to them here because I don’t know what it is like to have to live with the shit they do.

    No, that would be too fucking hard and respectful of other people. We should just bow to the superior wisdom of the totes progressive! dudes who think it can’t possibly be sexist because they liked it, instead of demanding that they re-evaluate it.

  177. SpookieThe Spy says:

    Watch the video – it’s well made and respectful.

  178. Carolyn says:

    I totally understand why some people think this is just a fun way to support the movement, and even how some can think its empowering to women and I’m not going to speak for these women as to if they felt offended or whatever. But I do want to point out that at Occupy movements all over the country women have talked about being propositioned and being harassed. Now if you want the movement to survive and grow you can’t have women feeling uncomfortable at them. If women don’t feel safe to attend (especially somewhere where they will be camping out) they won’t go, and they will tell their friends not to go and they will post on their facebooks and twitters about their experience which will make women not want to go. And if the word gets out that women don’t feel safe at Occupy guess what the media’s story will be about?
    I’m not saying this guy is a creep (although he isn’t helping his case by what he posts in response to the video), I’m just saying that the “Hey look there are hot chicks down here you should come down” is dangerous because if said hot chicks are made to feel skeeved out they will go home.

  179. Pingback: Daily Caller Pushes Sexist “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” Pics – blog

  180. Jas says:

    Does anyone want to help me with a Blog called “Shitty Dudes of Occupy Wall St” ? It would be a picture blog of guys who say shitty things with a quote underneath their picture. This way they will be accounted for. All submissions welcome.

  181. Evan R. says:

    HEY EDITOR: Just a thought, why not spell out that website instead of hyperlinking to it — as it is, this article is only bumping his SEO and inflating his page views further. Don’t give this little shitcock the hyperlink handout.

  182. EG says:

    SpookieThe Spy:
    Watch the video–it’s well made and respectful.

    Well, that’s a relief! I mean, I had thought it was poorly made. But a well-made “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” is totally OK.

  183. james says:

    As a male who considers himself a feminist, this conversation makes me feel sad. One woman commented about how calling a woman a ‘chick’ is degrading, because she felt it took away her identity. Just like women, men are unique and complex individual people, not objects. Calling a man “Mr. Douche” “dudebro” etc does not help the feminist cause, it just makes people equate your page and feminism with a negative connotation. It makes you come across as reactive, not insightful.

    I would go so far as to say this discussion is more harmful than good for the gender equality movement. we (women and men) ARE a team, and if you want things to change you’ll have to work with us, not against us. nothing like a bunch of angry feminists to make the men run for the hills, but I know my male friends will generally listen if approached respectfully!

  184. Sheelzebub says:

    James, James, James. You’re so screechy. You d00ds sure do get angry when you hear things that threaten you. You’re not going to win any feminist allies if you’re so bitter.

  185. JD says:

    Seriously, james? The tone argument is so yesterday.

    You may find this enlightening:
    http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#angry

  186. STEVE MANCHAMPION says:

    JD:
    Seriously,james?Thetoneargumentissoyesterday.

    Youmayfindthisenlightening:
    http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#angry

    PERFECTION!! THANKS JD!!!!!!!!!

  187. Pingback: Miscellanea « The House of Vines

  188. Pingback: Are Women Safe at Occupy Protests? « The Crawdad Hole

  189. Pingback: Are Women Safe at Occupy Protests? « peacocks and lilies

  190. angela says:

    so the worst thing about this… other than all its fucked up ness is that OTHER people and OTHER websites are posting his pictures/still images too.

    look here:

    http://www.lematin.ch/images/actu/les-plus-jolies-%C2%ABindignees%C2%BB-de-new-york-2011-11-02

    from a french blog. it doesn’t even source the material. and their title is even WORSE

    UGH

  191. Pingback: where is your line? » Blog Archive » Badass Activist Friday Presents: Anna Lekas Miller

Comments are closed.