Author: has written 5267 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

575 Responses

  1. Florence
    Florence October 19, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

    “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.”

    A friend of his comments, “Way to legitimize the movement, Steve.” Steven replies, “An erection legitimizes anything.” His friend replies, “Even rape?” Steven Greenstreet says, “It probably wouldn’t be rape without one.”

    What.

    The.

    Fuck.

  2. shfree
    shfree October 19, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

    Just reading that facebook exchange makes me want to take a hot shower, I feel so skeeved out.

  3. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

    Props to Derek Hunter for calling it like it is.

  4. Derek Hunter
    Derek Hunter October 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

    zuzu:
    Props to Derek Hunter for calling it like it is.

    Props to you for properly reading into my comments.

  5. John
    John October 19, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

  6. Andrew
    Andrew October 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

    There needs to be some sort of ostracization campaign or something. This is bullshit.

  7. Kelly
    Kelly October 19, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

  8. Florence
    Florence October 19, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

    FWIW, the “marshmellow in a parking meter” comment is another rape joke. Steve keeps good company.

  9. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Are you under the impression that Jill is Facebook friends with Steven? Or is the more likely explanation that he made his page public in order to get more hits for his shit video.

  10. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

    Andddd feel validated in my reasons described elsewhere for wanting nothing to do with the 99%. Would much rather be my 1/300,000,000, thanks. No jerkfaces in my %.

  11. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

    Women are only counted or important if we’re hot. Men aren’t judged nearly as harshly for their looks. And yes, I think that is bullshit, and I’m tired of fauxgressive douchebros rationalizing this bullshit.

    Before I hear the inevitable whining about circular firing squads and being divisive, consider this: Greenstreet’s little stunt and your justifications for it aren’t actually building the movement. It’s–dare I say it–divisive. And you are alienating potential allies. Because enough of us women (the “hawt” ones, the “normal” ones, and the “ugly” ones) have seen enough of this shit to not particularly want anything to do with a movement or supposed progressives that justify it and perpetuate it.

  12. Kate
    Kate October 19, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

    Actually, no, nothing is funny about rape or the idea of it under any circumstance.

    Comments considered “in jest” to one person can easily be taken seriously by another, like a rapist trying to legitimize rape.

  13. Kate
    Kate October 19, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Nothing is private on facebook regardless of your “privacy settings”. It’s the Internet. Media outlets use quotes and photos from personal twitter and facebook accounts all the time. That’s why people need to think twice about what they post online.

  14. Maria
    Maria October 19, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

    I’m a rape victim and I thought that was kind of funny. Not hysterical, but just like, “Heh heh.”

    You can always look at something in a negative way, or you can take a lighter look at things. If anything, that’s what my attack taught me. It was a joking observation and I’m sure he meant nothing by it :)

  15. Emily
    Emily October 19, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

    Actually, because the post above violates Facebook’s own Terms of Service and Privacy Terms, a formal complaint could be sent to your internet service provider. Not saying he will. But that’s the truth.

  16. victoria
    victoria October 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

    Kelly: Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    No, a totally offensive invasion of privacy would be more along the lines of videotaping women and posting their images on a “hot chicks” site without their consent.

  17. Allie
    Allie October 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

    Emily:
    Actually, because the post above violates Facebook’s own Terms of Service and Privacy Terms, a formal complaint could be sent to your internet service provider. Not saying he will. But that’s the truth.

    Very true, Facebook themselves could file a complaint since they’re using a screencapture of their layouts and logos.

    “Protecting Other People’s Rights

    We respect other people’s rights, and expect you to do the same.

    1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.
    2. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.
    3. We will provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more, visit our How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement page.
    4. If we remove your content for infringing someone else’s copyright, and you believe we removed it by mistake, we will provide you with an opportunity to appeal.
    5. If you repeatedly infringe other people’s intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.
    6. You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.
    7. If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.
    8. You will not post anyone’s identification documents or sensitive financial information on Facebook.
    9. You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.”

    http://www.facebook.com/#!/terms.php

  18. Anonymous
    Anonymous October 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

    Those who are saying this is an invasion of privacy are correct. All posts on facebook are the property of Facebook Inc. as per the TOS on the facebook website. Should facebook issue a cease and desist or a lawsuit they would be in the right.

  19. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

    Emily:
    Actually, because the post above violates Facebook’s own Terms of Service and Privacy Terms, a formal complaint could be sent to your internet service provider. Not saying he will. But that’s the truth.

    They’d have to get in line.

  20. labelledanseuse
    labelledanseuse October 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

    Emily: Actually, because the post above violates Facebook’s own Terms of Service and Privacy Terms, a formal complaint could be sent to your internet service provider. Not saying he will. But that’s the truth.

    Where does it say that? About someone who, say, doesn’t have a FB account and hasn’t agreed to the Terms of Service, taking a screencap of someone’s public FB? I don’t think there’s anything in either policy about that (or even someone who has an FB but has access to this information unrelated to their FB account)…

  21. Nahida
    Nahida October 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

    I bet Anonymous is Steven.

  22. Katniss
    Katniss October 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

    Maria: I’m a rape victim and I thought that was kind of funny. Not hysterical, but just like, “Heh heh.”You can always look at something in a negative way, or you can take a lighter look at things. If anything, that’s what my attack taught me. It was a joking observation and I’m sure he meant nothing by it :)

    I’m not sure why this is relevant. I’m a suvivor too and I find these kind of “jokes” offensive and hurtful at the very least and triggering at worst. Just because you find humor in it doesn’t mean other people need to “lighten up” or “look on the bright side” or just get over it.

    Look, if a handful of survivors find it funny but a much larger number of people (survivors or not) find these kind of jokes hurtful and offended, why do you think your apparently superior sense of humor should be prioritized? Shouldn’t avoiding hurting people with rape “jokes” be more important?

  23. Nahida
    Nahida October 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    And hey, we all know from groups that Facebook has NO PROBLEM WITH RAPE.

  24. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

    Nahida:
    I bet Anonymous is Steven.

    In which case, I expect to see his signed releases from each and every woman he taped for his little stunt. Since they apparently didn’t know he was taping them. I mean, if we are all going to be such sticklers for privacy and ethics, here.

  25. Maria
    Maria October 19, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

    Katniss: I’m not sure why this is relevant. I’m a suvivor too and I find these kind of “jokes” offensive and hurtful at the very least and triggering at worst. Just because you find humor in it doesn’t mean other people need to “lighten up” or “look on the bright side” or just get over it.

    Look, if a handful of survivors find it funny but a much larger number of people (survivors or not) find these kind of jokes hurtful and offended, why do you think your apparently superior sense of humor should be prioritized? Shouldn’t avoiding hurting people with rape “jokes” be more important?

    Oh goddness me, there is no such thing as a superior sense of humor :) Everyone finds different things funny. I’m sorry you hurt so bad and that you have a lot of anger still, but it gets better. I’m a very optimistic person and unfortunately it gets me in trouble sometimes. I found that the best way to deal with all the anger and hate I felt was to accept that it happened and move on.

    If such things trigger flashbacks for you then maybe it would be a good idea not to read articles like this :( Everything I read seems like it’s bent to instill anger, and while it’s something plenty of people have the right to be mad about, if it’s going to upset you you should probably avoid that.

  26. Emily
    Emily October 19, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    Is there anymore context to the facebook post? Did any comments come after the screen grab was taken? I went to his fbook page and couldn’t see his wall due to privacy. How can we see if he didn’t concede and apologize or, at least, take the post down?

  27. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Not to mention that Jill blacked out people’s names but not their profile pics. Anyone of them is identifiable through reverse image search. You might as well have not blanked out their names, and posted their email addresses and phone numbers as well Jill!

  28. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    I find it helpful to not offer condescending advice to people. Ahem.

  29. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

    Great, again, folks, you might want to warn Failbook about this as well. I mean, I’m just sayin’.

  30. wembley
    wembley October 19, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

    It’s super-cool that all Steven’s friends/sockpuppets are here to join the party! Hi, Totally Not Steven, glad y’all could make it. :D

  31. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

    Anonymous:
    Those who are saying this is an invasion of privacy are correct. All posts on facebook are the property of Facebook Inc. as per the TOS on the facebook website. Should facebook issue a cease and desist or a lawsuit they would be in the right.

    Invasion of privacy =/= copyright violation.

    Besides, I’d argue that this is fair use, if we’re going to get all lawyerly here.

  32. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

    And his Google image searching for pictures with which to slut shame a feminist blogger and reducing women’s political actions to a potentially non-consensual filming of a “hot chicks” video are somehow less notable, creepy things to do than Jill posting one screen shot from the Facebook page of a dude who has a public figure site and has been trolling for attention with his bullshit video for the last week.
    Oh good. Great. I’m can definitely see how that makes sense.

    I MEAN WHAT?

  33. Fake Steven Greenstreet
    Fake Steven Greenstreet October 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

    oops! sorry yall, i meant rape as in the french word for “grate”. I think we should GRATE these woman into a fine powder and snort them.

    ps- you are all filthy cunts and will never EVER affect my life.

  34. b
    b October 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

    You’re no better than they are, publishing his personal facebook page WITHOUT even removing his name.

    Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?

  35. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

    Sheelzebub: In which case, I expect to see his signed releases from each and every woman he taped for his little stunt.Since they apparently didn’t know he was taping them.I mean, if we are all going to be such sticklers for privacy and ethics, here.

    Right. Because what’s good for the goose, and all.

    Here’s a tip for those defending Greenstreet and hyperventilating about the OHNOES invasion of privacy: Facebook is not, repeat not, a private forum.

  36. Travis
    Travis October 19, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

    I’m going to go ahead and feign surprise that some people think it’s a good thing to make a video that will “…attract more men to the protest!”, while encouraging people of all genders who don’t want to be recorded without their consent and objectified NOT to show up.

  37. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

    Also I think my brain just exploded due to condescending concern-troll overload. Whoa.

  38. Not A Dude?
    Not A Dude? October 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

    I think the most offensive part of this article is how terrible the writing is.

  39. becky
    becky October 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

    wembley:
    It’s super-cool that all Steven’s friends/sockpuppets are here to join the party! Hi, Totally Not Steven, glad y’all could make it. :D

    Indeed. If you make disgusting “jokes” about rape on a public (or any other) facebook post (otherwise Jill or anyone else would not have been able to access it, for the love of…) that is obviously been put on “public” because lovely steven wanted more folks to know about his very valuable “contribution”, then suck it the fuck up that you will be called out on it. being mocked in an internet forum is the least of the things you deserve for it.

    you know what a good solution would be to this problem? not making rape jokes. not being friends with people like steven. not being assholes yourselves. and maybe even think about privacy settings once or twice. in any case: not showing up on a feminist blog whining about how mean and totally intrusive it is to be criticized for rape jokes.

    funny, though, how none of you cares about the women who have been either photographed and put on a homepage as masturbation devices without their knowledge or have been interviewed about their political activism (so they were told), and yet, still end up as masturbation devices. well done, steven, and all your little friends! *time to vomit*

  40. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

    I love it when people who know fuck-all about the law explain to Jill (and soon, Zuzu) all about it. I mean, they are lawyers. But the fail, it is entertaining.

    And what PosedbyModels said. Seems some people can dish it out but cannot take it. Typical.

  41. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

    Jill,

    Your complaints and the obnoxious way you display them does nothing but remove legitimacy from an already shaky argument. While you may not agree with the humor (and yes, there is a ton of it,) found in those facebook posts, it doesn’t mean that they’re inherently evil. If sycophantic mouth-breathers like yourself were the judge of what’s appropriate, the world would be a boring, stifling place (which you seem like you’d love.) Also, if my guesses are correct from looking around this shoddy website, you are a damage to your cause. See, intelligent arguments are hard to come by, and I’m sure you tried really hard here, but you failed. OWS could use more people, and if this kid’s efforts get just ten extra people there, who gives a crap how they do it. Stop trying to use a perfectly decent cause as a platform for your ill-informed dreck. I’m sure you’ll have some haphazardly thrown together response to this, but just remember, whatever that response is: it’ll probably be wrong (based strictly on your previous writings.)

  42. Katniss
    Katniss October 19, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

    Maria: Oh goddness me, there is no such thing as a superior sense of humor :) Everyone finds different things funny. I’m sorry you hurt so bad and that you have a lot of anger still, but it gets better. I’m a very optimistic person and unfortunately it gets me in trouble sometimes. I found that the best way to deal with all the anger and hate I felt was to accept that it happened and move on.If such things trigger flashbacks for you then maybe it would be a good idea not to read articles like this :( Everything I read seems like it’s bent to instill anger, and while it’s something plenty of people have the right to be mad about, if it’s going to upset you you should probably avoid that.

    Your concern is noted but unnecessary. I personally don’t find it triggering, I find it FRUSTRATING. I deal with enough people who aren’t survivors telling victims to “buck up”, to stop being angry because it’s “unhealthy”, to get a sense of humor, and all kinds of other advice. I don’t think fellow survivors should be piling that kind of concern trolling on each other.

    I also don’t think survivors should waltz into a post like this and talk about how they don’t find rape jokes funny, as if that means finding them offensive and calling them out is just being way too serious.

  43. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    In that case, Jill, I may have to make another bet. I’ve already got a steak dinner in the bag thanks to the red flag post. I’m hoping for either tapas or sushi this time. . .

    Oh, internet douchery. You keep me well-fed and entertained!

    Jill:
    Just FYI, I’m deleting a LOT of comments on the back end here, but letting some of the less offensive ones go through just so we’re all on the same page about who Steven’s defenders are (i.e., “Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?”). The really awful ones I’m getting rid of.

  44. becky
    becky October 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    Jill:
    Just FYI, I’m deleting a LOT of comments on the back end here, but letting some of the less offensive ones go through just so we’re all on the same page about who Steven’s defenders are (i.e., “Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?”). The really awful ones I’m getting rid of.

    yeah – i was very pleasantly surprised by what happend in the meantime of clicking on the “submit” button…

    that really shows all there needs to be known about steven and his crowd, and their idea of “women’s rights” (which steven thinks he’s promoting, right). just… i don’t… *facepalm*
    thanks for writing this, Jill, and dealing with these assholes.

  45. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

    Steven Greenstreet:
    oops! sorry yall, i meant rape as in the french word for “grate”. I think we should GRATE these woman into a fine powder and snort them.

    ps- you are all filthy cunts and will never EVER affect my life.

    And suddenly I no longer think the concern trolls are his sockpuppets – too much self-restraint.

  46. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

    Steven Greenstreet:
    oops! sorry yall, i meant rape as in the french word for “grate”. I think we should GRATE these woman into a fine powder and snort them.

    ps- you are all filthy cunts and will never EVER affect my life.

    But we already have, darling.

    Such a judgypants.

  47. Dave
    Dave October 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    I hope this guy sues you for libel.

  48. The Man
    The Man October 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    You try and make valid points with your ‘article’, but resort to violating Facebook TOS and Privacy Laws in order to do so. Real journalistic integrity there. Very amateurish. I have not seen the mentioned video but can only assume he filmed it ‘personally’ in a ‘public’ space, meaning Releases and the such are NOT required. You broke the law, he did not. Sort it out, if you want to be taken seriously.

  49. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    jibbles:
    Jill,

    Your complaints and the obnoxious way you display them does nothing but remove legitimacy from an already shaky argument. While you may not agree with the humor (and yes, there is a ton of it,) found in those facebook posts, it doesn’t mean that they’re inherently evil. If sycophantic mouth-breathers like yourself were the judge of what’s appropriate, the world would be a boring, stifling place (which you seem like you’d love.) Also, if my guesses are correct from looking around this shoddy website, you are a damage to your cause. See, intelligent arguments are hard to come by, and I’m sure you tried really hard here, but you failed. OWS could use more people, and if this kid’s efforts get just ten extra people there, who gives a crap how they do it.Stop trying to use a perfectly decent cause as a platform for your ill-informed dreck. I’m sure you’ll have some haphazardly thrown together response to this, but just remember, whatever that response is: it’ll probably be wrong (based strictly on your previous writings.)

    Oh, look. Comic Book Guy has joined the party!

  50. Rich
    Rich October 19, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    As I said before, this guy has added nothing to the OWS movement besides making the “mainstream media” treat it like a joke. What Greenstreet did was stupid and really wrong; he creepily taped women and then posted it on his horrible website. Men were present at all OWS protests in every city, so he really didn’t need to “attract” more men to the movement. His 15 minutes are ticking away!

  51. Andrew
    Andrew October 19, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

    If Facebook ever tried to sue someone for posting a screenshot they’d be laughed out of court since it clearly falls under Fair Use.

  52. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 19, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

    Steven Greenstreet:
    oops! sorry yall, i meant rape as in the french word for “grate”. I think we should GRATE these woman into a fine powder and snort them.

    ps- you are all filthy cunts and will never EVER affect my life.

    HOO BOY.
    Well if you were ever going to use the “But I love women and women’s rights! You just need to lighten up!” defense, you just blew it.
    Really doing justice to the OWS cause, bro.

  53. becky
    becky October 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

    Dave:
    I hope this guy sues you for libel.

    …and i hope you find out at some point what “libel” actually means. hint: it’s not “i can’t be a sexist asshole without anyone knowing about it, dammit…”

  54. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

    zuzu: if this kid’s efforts get just ten extra people there, who gives a crap how they do it

    And if this kid’s efforts turn twenty people away? Your logic, it is embarrassed by itself.

    I love people who try to argue by adjectives instead of information and reason.

  55. M
    M October 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

    Yea, this is just soooo horrible, but women on The View can cackle and laugh about a lady cutting of a dude’s penis because he wanted a divorce… but its ok because ‘it’s different’. This guy says something slightly offensive and you jump all over it. This is such a joke.

  56. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl October 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

    Jibbles: “sychophantic” — it does not mean what you think it means. … if you even have a working definition of it in yer head.

  57. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

    Dang it, that was not zuzu! I forgot to go to the original comment – apparently the sheer amount of blithering nonsense repulsed me.

  58. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

    Dave:
    I hope this guy sues you for libel.

    For using his own words?

    Steven Greenstreet has, by seeking the limelight and creating a “public figure” FB page, just made it that more difficult for himself if he wants to sue anyone for libel. Now he has to show “actual malice,” which is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

    IOW, good luck with that!

  59. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

    Steven Greenstreet:
    oops! sorry yall, i meant rape as in the french word for “grate”. I think we should GRATE these woman into a fine powder and snort them.

    ps- you are all filthy cunts and will never EVER affect my life.

    Uh-huh. Which is why you just ranted on this blog.

    OK–so, here’s my pool for the next round of Douchey McTrolleyPants comments:

    1) You are very uncivil in your objections! You’re mean/manhaters/blahblahblah.
    2) You are very angry/irrational. You should lighten up.
    3) Stop being such a victim. Also, lots of whining about PC mores run wild.
    4) What is the matter with liking beautiful women? You are probably jealous because you bitches are ugly. (Extra points if there are fat jokes or hairy ugly bitches jokes.)
    5) Men are visual, and this is the way to promote OWS.

    OK, trolls. Go! Let’s see it. Sheelzebub wants some plates of white bean salad, braised boar, venison sausage with a juniper-berry glaze, and baked tomatoes and goat cheese. Among other things. If you really bring it with something completely off the wall, we get dessert at Mike’s.

    Steven and your sockpuppet trolls, I have faith in your utter douchiness. I know you will not fail me.

  60. charlie
    charlie October 19, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

    I have a question: who gives a shit about Steven Greenstreet joking with his friends on fb?

  61. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl October 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    oops. I was obviously laughing too hard to spell correctly!

  62. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    OH. To make it interesting, dessert at Mike’s will require people to post this:

    More amateur lawyer scolding about how Jill is going to be sued.
    Amateur lawyer scolding about how what Greenstreet did is different.
    Humorless feminazis. (Stalinist and doctrainaire will also do nicely.)

    And. . .GO!

  63. labelledanseuse
    labelledanseuse October 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    @Sheelzebub

    charlie: I have a question: who gives a shit about Steven Greenstreet joking with his friends on fb?

    I think this one qualifies under #2, as one can infer that people who do give a shit don’t have a sense of humour and are therefore too angry or irrational.

  64. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    The Man: You try and make valid points with your ‘article’, but resort to violating Facebook TOS and Privacy Laws in order to do so.

    Facebook can assert its own rights if Facebook cares to. I imagine a billionaire like Zuckerberg has armies of lawyers on retainer for just this sort of thing.

    You should be aware, however, that Facebook’s interests and Greenstreet’s interests are not, in fact, coterminous. So while your concern for FB’s intellectual property rights is charming, it’s not going to help your boy Greenstreet much.

    Real journalistic integrity there. Very amateurish. I have not seen the mentioned video but can only assume he filmed it ‘personally’ in a ‘public’ space, meaning Releases and the such are NOT required. You broke the law, he did not. Sort it out, if you want to be taken seriously.

    Which laws did Jill break?

    If you’re such an expert in privacy law, surely you’ve heard of the right of publicity. Sort that out if you want to be taken seriously.

  65. Lolseph Lolbbels
    Lolseph Lolbbels October 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

    Seriously? You just used some random guys post on your site, didn’t even hide his name. His rape joke wasn’t even that bad, as what he said is true, it’s pretty hard to rape someone without a boner. He wasn’t specifically talking about raping anyone, also, rape isn’t a woman only problem, I was raped as a kid so fuck you and suck my dick.

  66. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

    Were those of you responding to “Steven Greenstreet” born yesterday? Obviously he didn’t write that comment. Check what his name links to. You’re getting trolled HARD.

  67. Rich
    Rich October 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

    charlie:
    I have a question: who gives a shit about Steven Greenstreet joking with his friends on fb?

    Uhhhh, because he was joking about rape and then purports to not be a misogynist? Do you think rape is funny?

  68. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

    Sheelzebub: Uh-huh.Which is why you just ranted on this blog.

    OK–so, here’s my pool for the next round of Douchey McTrolleyPants comments:

    1) You are very uncivil in your objections!You’re mean/manhaters/blahblahblah.
    2) You are very angry/irrational.You should lighten up.
    3) Stop being such a victim.Also, lots of whining about PC mores run wild.
    4) What is the matter with liking beautiful women? You are probably jealous because you bitches are ugly. (Extra points if there are fat jokes or hairy ugly bitches jokes.)
    5) Men are visual, and this is the way to promote OWS.

    OK, trolls.Go! Let’s see it.Sheelzebub wants some plates of white bean salad, braised boar, venison sausage with a juniper-berry glaze, and baked tomatoes and goat cheese.Among other things.If you really bring it with something completely off the wall, we get dessert at Mike’s.

    Steven and your sockpuppet trolls, I have faith in your utter douchiness.I know you will not fail me.

    Let’s not forget 6) There’s no such thing as misogyny because you have the vote now;

    7) Women in [insert repressive back-assward country here] have to deal with misogyny, you don’t.

  69. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

    Well I’m going to go have real food instead of comment-war popcorn for dinner, but I can’t wait to see how many hundreds of disgruntled misogynist comments have materialized by the time I come back.

  70. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

    Chris:
    Were those of you responding to “Steven Greenstreet” born yesterday? Obviously he didn’t write that comment. Check what his name links to. You’re getting trolled HARD.

    Well, yes – that’s part of the fun.

    Seriously, the thing I never got about trolls is that most of the time we’re just entertained by them.

  71. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

    Chris:
    Were those of you responding to “Steven Greenstreet” born yesterday? Obviously he didn’t write that comment. Check what his name links to. You’re getting trolled HARD.

    Ok, we’ve had ‘it wasn’t that bad’, ‘this is an invasion of privacy’, and now ‘it wasn’t him’

  72. Steven
    Steven October 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

    Sooooo are you going to post the link in an edit??

  73. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

    Chris:
    Were those of you responding to “Steven Greenstreet” born yesterday? Obviously he didn’t write that comment. Check what his name links to. You’re getting trolled HARD.

    Holy fucking shit! NOOOO. /sarcasm Believe me when I say that we find all of the spittle-aspirating outrage and trolling screeds to be so much entertainment. Also, Feministe’s Next Top Troll is due for another round, so this adds to the candidate pool nicely.

    Son, were you born stupid, or do you just work really hard at it every day? Because you trolls are getting mocked. HARD.

  74. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

    I don’t support Steve’s actions, but I agree it’s a shame you are perpetuating negative stereotypes of feminism. This blog post is done in poor taste, and alienating. You’re not doing our community any favors.

  75. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

    zuzu: Oh, look.Comic Book Guy has joined the party!

    I assume you’re attempting to be snarky. Sadly, you have worse aim than Jill.

  76. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

    Janet:
    I don’t support Steve’s actions, but I agree it’s a shame you are perpetuating negative stereotypes of feminism.This blog post is done in poor taste, and alienating.You’re not doing our community any favors.

    Jill, why can’t you be one of the NICE feminists who never, ever do anything tasteless like criticize men who make rape jokes?

  77. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

    Jill: A link to what?

    I think he means a link to a pic of a cute cat sleeping, so I’ll save you the time.

    http://jetvetllc.com/ESW/Images/cute-cat-sleeping.jpg

  78. Laura C
    Laura C October 19, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

    Wow. What a comment thread. Yes, I’d say this guy’s defenders have more than made Jill’s case.

  79. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

    Jadey: And if this kid’s efforts turn twenty people away? Your logic, it is embarrassed by itself.

    I love people who try to argue by adjectives instead of information and reason.

    No, it isn’t. If people were to be turned away by this, they are fools. There’s clearly a greater cause at stake than some silly sexist war. Oh, and ‘argue by adjectives’ makes no sense. Let the educated folk talk now.

  80. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

    Awesome. Tone argument. Humorless argument. We’re getting there. Keep it coming, trolls! I want a goddamn tapas dinner this Friday. You are full of fail, but not when it comes to your predictability.

  81. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

    Jill, you are such a hypocrite. Taking those curves of yours out in public while wearing a dress and then allowing somebody to take a photograph of you is totally the same as telling women who have the gall to think their opinions and thoughts matter that you’re interested in those opinions and thoughts in order to get pictures to use as public jerk-off fodder. What is so hard to understand about that?

    And showing actual comments this douchebag actually made on his actual facebook page in public is simply uncivil. It’s far worse than the above-mentioned jerk-off fodder crap and the rape joking combined.

    Why? Why, you ask?

    Well…um…because with the stuff you did, Jill, seems to be implying that a man has done something wrong. Everyone knows that men are the important part of a movement, and if they aren’t able to do exactly as they please with no blowback at all, they might take their toys and go home, because, apparently, they’re big whiny babies. I mean, that stuff Greenstreet did was only obnoxious to women, and everyone knows they’ve never made any contribution to a leftist movement.

  82. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

    jibbles: No, it isn’t. If people were to be turned away by this, they are fools. There’s clearly a greater cause at stake than some silly sexist war. Oh, and ‘argue by adjectives’ makes no sense. Let the educated folk talk now.

    You are welcome to turn your attention to the Important Shit (TM) then.

  83. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

    Maria: I’m sorry you hurt so bad and that you have a lot of anger still, but it gets better.

    What a wonderful non-apology. I’m sorry you’re so callous that you think your perspective is superior and more valid than everyone else’s!

    I’m good at non-apologies too.

  84. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

    jibbles: No, it isn’t. If people were to be turned away by this, they are fools. There’s clearly a greater cause at stake than some silly sexist war. Oh, and ‘argue by adjectives’ makes no sense. Let the educated folk talk now.

    Silly girls, not wanting to attend a protest where the men are there to ogle them and think that rape is funny!

    Don’tchaknow only uneducated people would ever be turned off from a “progressive” movement that embraces regressive attitudes about rape and women as decoration/bait rather than full members of the movement?

  85. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

    Sheelzebub:
    Awesome.Tone argument.Humorless argument.We’re getting there.Keep it coming, trolls! I want a goddamn tapas dinner this Friday.You are full of fail, but not when it comes to your predictability.

    Predictability has no bearing on the accuracy of a statement.

  86. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

    There’s clearly a greater cause at stake than some silly sexist war.

    I completely agree. Now go explain that to Greenstreet and his ilk, so that they stop being such sexist assholes and get on with making common cause with the women at OWS against the exploitative, punitive economic system that drives the US.

  87. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

    It’s like Troll Christmas up in here, y’all – I just can’t decide which one to rip into first!

  88. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

    zuzu: Silly girls, not wanting to attend a protest where the men are there to ogle them and think that rape is funny!

    Don’tchaknow only uneducated people would ever be turned off from a “progressive” movement that embraces regressive attitudes about rape and women as decoration/bait rather than full members of the movement?

    To lump all men at this protest into a group that ‘ogles women’ is entirely unfair. Clearly this guy officially represents nobody (aside from his own sense of humor.) The movement itself embraces nothing you have described here; you’re simply assuming it does based on someone’s facebook comments.

  89. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

    jibbles: Predictability has no bearing on the accuracy of a statement.

    Serious troll is serious.

    You’re so cute when you’re outraged. Now dance for me.

  90. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

    Sheelzebub: You are welcome to turn your attention to the Important Shit (TM) then.

    I was attempting to pay attention to what’s important, but I got waylaid by this thing popping up in a news feed about OWS.

  91. becky
    becky October 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

    jibbles: To lump all men at this protest into a group that ‘ogles women’ is entirely unfair. Clearly this guy officially represents nobody (aside from his own sense of humor.) The movement itself embraces nothing you have described here; you’re simply assuming it does based on someone’s facebook comments.

    *single tear*

  92. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

    Sheelzebub: Serious troll is serious.

    You’re so cute when you’re outraged.Now dance for me.

    Dance for you? Isn’t that the exact attitude you’re attempting to eradicate? And I’m no troll (unless you have a vast misunderstanding of what a troll does, which I’m thinking you might.) I just don’t agree with the article, so here I am.

  93. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

    Sheelzebub:
    You’re so cute when you’re outraged.Now dance for me.

    YES. Let’s make this a thing.

  94. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

    jibbles: I was attempting to pay attention to what’s important, but I got waylaid by this thing popping up in a news feed about OWS.

    And The FEMINISTS, apparently forcing you to participate on this thread. Not that I’m complaining. Your righteous indignation is as hilarious as your logic is weak.

    Now dance for me, troll.

  95. Anonymous
    Anonymous October 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

    So, your way of getting back at the attention hungry Steven Greenstreet is to give him more attention? Very clever.

  96. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

    Arguing by adjectives: my own way of describing someone who loads up with extra descriptives in order to make them appear smarter without adding any rhetorical substance. It’s the kind of thing the undergraduates lose marks for when I grade their papers. Which is my way of stating that I am “educated”, although fortunately formal education is not actually a requirement to identify a weak argument.

    Bored of jibbles now! Want fresh troll meat.

  97. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

    jibbles: Dance for you? Isn’t that the exact attitude you’re attempting to eradicate? And I’m no troll (unless you have a vast misunderstanding of what a troll does, which I’m thinking you might.) I just don’t agree with the article, so here I am.

    ‘Troll’, elsewhere on the Internet:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    ‘Troll’ on Femineste:
    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the original author or other commenters.

    Hope I’ve cleared that up.

  98. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

    jibbles: Dance for you? Isn’t that the exact attitude you’re attempting to eradicate?

    Well, you don’t seem to have a problem with it, so show your support by picking up the slack. Keep dancing troll. Do some spins. I love it when trolls spin and burst into flame on the internet. It’s awesome.

  99. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

    zuzu: Jill, why can’t you be one of the NICE feminists who never, ever do anything tasteless like criticize men who make rape jokes?

    There’s a difference between making criticisms and going on an emotionally charged witchhunt. Calling a man a “creep” is the woman form of crypto-sexism. Sorry but this type of writing does play into the negative stereotypes of feminism. It poisons the well for everyone else in the community.

    Jill is right in that men need to speak out when something is “fucked up”. That also means WE need to speak out on what goes on within our community.

  100. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

    Anonymous:
    So, your way of getting back at the attention hungry Steven Greenstreet is to give him more attention? Very clever.

    That been done, like, a hundred times. Try to be more original. You’re up against some serious trolling competition here.

  101. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

    jibbles: Dance for you? Isn’t that the exact attitude you’re attempting to eradicate? And I’m no troll (unless you have a vast misunderstanding of what a troll does, which I’m thinking you might.) I just don’t agree with the article, so here I am.

    ‘Troll’ elsewhere on the Internet:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    ‘Troll’ on Femineste:
    Anyone that doesn’t agree with the original author or subsequent commenters.

    Hope I’ve cleared that up for you.

    1. Lauren
      Lauren October 19, 2011 at 3:00 pm | *

      Sheelzebub, did you have anything in your bet about quoting the dictionary?

  102. Sandy
    Sandy October 19, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

    Damn that was a lot of comments really fast.

    It doesn’t really need to be said again, but OMFG the reeking sexism/misogyny of all of this burns the nostrils. Nostrils! On! FIRE! I shouldn’t be surprised at the astonishing bullshit feminist bloggers have to deal with, but sometimes I still am. Sorry you have to deal with this Jill.

  103. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

    Janet: There’s a difference between making criticisms and going on an emotionally charged witchhunt.Calling a man a “creep” is the woman form of crypto-sexism.Sorry but this type of writing does play into the negative stereotypes of feminism.It poisons the well for everyone else in the community.

    Jill is right in that men need to speak out when something is “fucked up”.That also means WE need to speak out on what goes on within our community.

    OK, would it be cheating if I counted the oft-overused witchhunt analogy with the Hitler/feminazi/STALIN!/doctrinaire rhetoric? I mean, it’s so close, and it’s pretty much the same thing!

    Keep it coming trolls.

    Janet, perhaps you can sing, to accompany Jibbles furious dancing.

  104. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

    Sheelzebub:I love it when trolls spin and burst into flame on the internet.It’s awesome.

    Ok… well, I wouldn’t want that. Just remember… you’re what’s wrong with ‘feminism.’ A movement can’t succeed if it’s led by ill-informed controversy-mongers like yourself. Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

  105. Jadey
    Jadey October 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    Chris: ‘Troll’, elsewhere on the Internet:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    ‘Troll’ on Femineste:
    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the original author or other commenters.

    Hope I’ve cleared that up.

    Eh, we’ve adapted the term from its original very specific use, I’ll grant (although this is hardly restricted to us), but that’s language for you – we bend it to new uses all the time. Troll around here generally refers to inflammatory commenters, whether they’ve drunk their own kool-aid or not (sadly, the former is usually true). Disagreement and good debate happens around here all the time, but most of us don’t have the patience anymore to seriously entertain people who come in here expecting us to bend over backwards to please them when they don’t have the slightest knowledge of or respect for the basic understandings that most of the regular commenters share (like, that sexism is an actual thing that happens). Yeah, we police our borders – we also fight with each other a lot on things that matter. I’d rather have an honest argument with Sheelzebub about something we both care about than waste time trying to have a meaningful conversation with jibbles when I’ve got no reason to expect anything different from him than I’ve gotten from the last bajillion people who showed up with that kind of attitude. I mean, it’s just learning theory in action.

  106. Leah
    Leah October 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    I’d like to know how the women in the video feel about it.

  107. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    Chris, Janet’s already covered the fascist angle. Do try something new.

    Trolls! The problem with them is they lack creativity. Come on. Make an effort here, or you’ll never make Feministe’s Next Top Troll.

  108. Esti
    Esti October 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    I’m sorry you have to actually wade through all of the comments here, Jill, but you’re doing a real public service. Every person out there who thought “It’s just a funny video! No one is being sexist!” now has irrefutable proof to the contrary. Obviously some people are embracing the sexism, but I think it could be a lightbulb moment for others on why the funny jokes that don’t seem important are usually a signal of a bigger problem.

  109. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    How is any of this a witch hunt? Dude is creepy in many ways, dude gets criticised.

    He posted photos of Jill in a dress and accused her of being attractive and thus unable to have a point. I don’t see anything wrong about posting his tasteless, nasty rape jokes so people can see evidence of what an ass he is.

  110. jibbles
    jibbles October 19, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

    Chris: ‘Troll’ elsewhere on the Internet:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    ‘Troll’ on Femineste:
    Anyone that doesn’t agree with the original author or subsequent commenters.

    Hope I’ve cleared that up for you.

    well played, sir.

  111. jrockford
    jrockford October 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

    jibbles: Ok… well, I wouldn’t want that. Just remember… you’re what’s wrong with ‘feminism.’ A movement can’t succeed if it’s led by ill-informed controversy-mongers like yourself. Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    Yes, lord knows feminism will only succeed if feminists do nothing to challenge society and avoids controversy. Brilliant!

    Also, bonus for the passive aggressive, “ur fat” joke at the end.

  112. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

    jibbles: well played, sir.

    Unfortunately you guys are just playing with yourselves.

  113. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

    pun intended

  114. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Lauren:
    Sheelzebub, did you have anything in your bet about quoting the dictionary?

    No, but I should have.

    jibbles: Ok… well, I wouldn’t want that. Just remember… you’re what’s wrong with ‘feminism.’ A movement can’t succeed if it’s led by ill-informed controversy-mongers like yourself. Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    Oh, honey. You trolls are just so much red meat, here. And coming from someone who’s got their undies in a bunch over us disagreeing with a self-proclaimed “controversial” film maker, I find the outrage over “controversy mongering” amusing.

    Continue your dancing. It amuses me.

  115. campionrules
    campionrules October 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

    My Lord,

    The Fail with these trolls is strong. We might actually be on the verge of a Troll Apocalypse where every kind of troll converges on one thread.

    The INTERWEBZ are at risk here people!

  116. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

    Concern troll is concerned.

    Janet: There’s a difference between making criticisms and going on an emotionally charged witchhunt.Calling a man a “creep” is the woman form of crypto-sexism.Sorry but this type of writing does play into the negative stereotypes of feminism.It poisons the well for everyone else in the community.

    Jill is right in that men need to speak out when something is “fucked up”.That also means WE need to speak out on what goes on within our community.

  117. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

    Iany:
    How is any of this a witch hunt? Dude is creepy in many ways, dude gets criticised.

    He posted photos of Jill in a dress and accused her of being attractive and thus unable to have a point. I don’t see anything wrong about posting his tasteless, nasty rape jokes so people can see evidence of what an ass he is.

    Anything that a woman says that hurts a d00d’s fee-fees is a witchhunt. Glad to clear that up for you. ;)

  118. Andie
    Andie October 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    I missed the part where “Steven Greenstreet is a sexist asshole” became “All guys involved in OWS are sexist assholes.”

    Did someone say this? Because I missed it. Or I’m pretty sure nobody said that.

    I do recall someone saying that OWS doesn’t need people who are only drawn to it because ‘Huh huh.. hot chicks.’

  119. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    Jill:
    Calling a dude a “creep” after he google-images me and uses my photos to basically say that I look like I’m asking for it is just as bad as making a rape joke? Huh?

    None of that validates speaking without integrity while speaking as a figure head of feminism. You are being a hypocrite if your rhetoric relies on framing all men into negative gender roles.

  120. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

    Janet: Calling a man a “creep” is the woman form of crypto-sexism

    I didn’t realize Radiohead were so crypto-sexist.

  121. Andy
    Andy October 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

    Jill can you please tailor your message to be more pleasing to my male ego? kthanks

  122. Andie
    Andie October 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

    Janet: None of that validates speaking without integrity while speaking as a figure head of feminism.You are being a hypocrite if your rhetoric relies on framing all men into negative gender roles.

    Again.. Steven Greenstreet is all men? He must get up very early in the morning.

  123. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

    Jadey: Eh, we’ve adapted the term from its original very specific use, I’ll grant (although this is hardly restricted to us), but that’s language for you – we bend it to new uses all the time. Troll around here generally refers to inflammatory commenters, whether they’ve drunk their own kool-aid or not (sadly, the former is usually true). Disagreement and good debate happens around here all the time, but most of us don’t have the patience anymore to seriously entertain people who come in here expecting us to bend over backwards to please them when they don’t have the slightest knowledge of or respect for the basic understandings that most of the regular commenters share (like, that sexism is an actual thing that happens). Yeah, we police our borders – we also fight with each other a lot on things that matter. I’d rather have an honest argument with Sheelzebub about something we both care about than waste time trying to have a meaningful conversation with jibbles when I’ve got no reason to expect anything different from him than I’ve gotten from the last bajillion people who showed up with that kind of attitude. I mean, it’s just learning theory in action.

    Thank you for your well-thought out reply. Its a welcome change from Sheezlebub’s salty Ad hominems.

    Still sounds to me like a bit of an echo chamber, but I haven’t read this blog until Steve linked to it from his FB a few days ago, so I have no idea what you all usually have to contend with.

  124. Kes
    Kes October 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

    jibbles:

    OWS could use more people, and if this kid’s efforts get just ten extra people there, who gives a crap how they do it.

    Fascinating to discover that the definition of “people” has slipped back to meaning “men”. Who was saying that feminism is a dead movement now that we’ve got the vote?

  125. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

    Andie: Again.. Steven Greenstreet is all men?He must get up very early in the morning.

    Any perpetuation of “creep” as valid is not good for any man or woman for that matter.

  126. jrockford
    jrockford October 19, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

    I guess I wonder what “non-crypto-sexist” adjective would have been preferable.

  127. Katniss
    Katniss October 19, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

    Janet: None of that validates speaking without integrity while speaking as a figure head of feminism. You are being a hypocrite if your rhetoric relies on framing all men into negative gender roles.

    Where is she framing all men into negative gender roles? Or are you trying to argue that “creep” is now a “gender role”?

  128. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

    jibbles:

    Ok… well, I wouldn’t want that. Just remember… you’re what’s wrong with ‘feminism.’ A movement can’t succeed if it’s led by ill-informed controversy-mongers like yourself. Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    Fuck. I go to sleep for like three hours and Sheelzebub gets elected Leader of Feminism. Wow do times change fast.

  129. Kes
    Kes October 19, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

    Janet: None of that validates speaking without integrity while speaking as a figure head of feminism.You are being a hypocrite if your rhetoric relies on framing all men into negative gender roles.

    How is anything Jill wrote casting all men in a negative light? It certainly casts a negative light on Mr. Greenstreet, but not much more so than he’d already managed to do himself. Also when was Jill appointed the Official Figure Head of Feminism? I must have missed that High Council Meeting.

  130. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

    OK, so far:

    1) You are very uncivil in your objections! You’re mean/manhaters/blahblahblah. (Check)

    2) You are very angry/irrational. You should lighten up. (check)

    3) Stop being such a victim. Also, lots of whining about PC mores run wild. (check)

    4) What is the matter with liking beautiful women? You are probably jealous because you bitches are ugly. (Extra points if there are fat jokes or hairy ugly bitches jokes.)

    (HMMM–well, we had jibbles make the backhanded fat joke towards me, so I’ll take it. But if someone else could post something that wraps it all of the rhetoric up in a big bow, maybe throw in frigid/puritanical/or sexphobic in with it, that would be awesome. And by awesome, I mean, completely expected.)

    5) Men are visual, and this is the way to promote OWS. (check)

    You all brought it within a few hours. Bravo!

    But I want dessert.

    More amateur lawyer scolding about how Jill is going to be sued. (check)

    Amateur lawyer scolding about how what Greenstreet did is different. (I haven’t seen this yet, come on trolls–don’t disappoint me. Bring your trolling fail.)

    Humorless feminazis. (Stalinist and doctrainaire will also do nicely.) (Several trolls).

    Come on! If you manage to give me the scolding about how what Greenstreet did is different and totally OK while asserting that what Jill did with the FB screenshot is awful, I go to Mike’s. And Mike’s is AWESOME.

  131. Katniss
    Katniss October 19, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

    I would seriously like to see Janet’s argument for how “creep” is a sexist or invalid term. People are creeps when they act like creeps, not because of gender roles or stereotypes.

  132. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

    Janet:

    Here’s a radical concept: maybe Greenstreet should stop doing creepy things.

    Forest, trees.

  133. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

    Jill:
    Sheelzebub, we’ve also gotten one “Show me your tits!” which I have deleted.

    I’m willing to take one for the team…just let me unbutton my shirt.

  134. Andie
    Andie October 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

    Jill: Seriously? WHY? Some people are creepy and behave like creeps. How else would you like me to describe Steven’s behavior.

    Heh. Problematic? *ducks from rotten vegetables being hurled at head*

  135. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

    “Creep” is a syncretism of many behaviors. One of them, “being needy” within the context of traditional male roles of “strength”. The word creep perpetuates the idea that men who don’t fit this traditional role are dysfunctional in the eyes of women.

  136. Nicholas
    Nicholas October 19, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

    This comment thread is brotastic.

    I am shocked that libel was brought up before anyone mentioned how Jill was infringing on their First Amendment right to free speech.

    As I recall, it reads:
    “No feminist shall…”

  137. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Jill:
    Sheelzebub, we’ve also gotten one “Show me your tits!” which I have deleted.

    DAMMIT. So I’m on the road to cooking brunch. (Eh. A strata, salad, mimosas, easy-peasy.)

  138. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Sheelzebub: we’ve also been informed that this is an echo chamber. Plus a whole load of what about the menz concern trolling from Janet (sisterhood is powerful!).

  139. Mr. Kristen J.
    Mr. Kristen J. October 19, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    To ignore the delicious troll feast for a moment and riff off one of Jill’s points – it become increasingly clear that the OWS movement is not beginning to resemble the old boss in a number of ways. The lack of response from OWS community around the racist signage, the treatment of objections by indigenous people, the sexual assaults, and the misogynistic videos indicates that in the interests of “community building” people are ignoring the harm caused to marginalized people. If the OWS movement build a consensus to protect its members then I find it to be completely uncompelling. In all likelihood its just transfering power from one group of white men to another group of white men.

  140. petpluto
    petpluto October 19, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    jibbles: Jill, OWS could use more people, and if this kid’s efforts get just ten extra people there, who gives a crap how they do it.

    By “people”, I think you mean “men”.

    And – I give a crap how they do it. Because how we organize matters. The problem with organizations that justify their means with the accomplishments of their ends is that their means become pretty vile, pretty quickly. And their ends tend not to be that wonderful, given whom they’ve alienated along the way.

  141. Kes
    Kes October 19, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

    Janet:
    “Creep” is a syncretism of many behaviors.One of them, “being needy” within the context of traditional male roles of “strength”.The word creep perpetuates the idea that men who don’t fit this traditional role are dysfunctional in the eyes of women.

    Which women? Feminist women? Where? The idea that anger is the only acceptably “macho” emotion is classic TPHMT, and really has no bearing on the issue at hand. Furthermore, women are equally as capable of being creepy as men.

  142. Katniss
    Katniss October 19, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

    Janet: “Creep” is a syncretism of many behaviors. One of them, “being needy” within the context of traditional male roles of “strength”. The word creep perpetuates the idea that men who don’t fit this traditional role are dysfunctional in the eyes of women.

    I don’t know what circles you run in but I don’t buy it. There is a large difference between what will get a man labeled “needy” and what will get him labeled as a creep. Needy can be annoying but isn’t creepy. Creepy is acting like you don’t care about other people’s boundaries, or, say, using how a woman dresses against her in internet arguments, especially by implying that she’s “asking for it”. In this case the creep label is accurate and well deserved.

  143. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

    Janet: “Creep” is a syncretism of many behaviors. One of them, “being needy” within the context of traditional male roles of “strength”. The word creep perpetuates the idea that men who don’t fit this traditional role are dysfunctional in the eyes of women.

    Maybe if the “need” involved is the “need” to objectify, harass and diminish women, to monopolise their time and attention, to have unqualified access to their emotional and domestic labour etc.

  144. petpluto
    petpluto October 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

    Janet: “Creep” is a syncretism of many behaviors. One of them, “being needy” within the context of traditional male roles of “strength”. The word creep perpetuates the idea that men who don’t fit this traditional role are dysfunctional in the eyes of women.

    Ok, but that’s not why Jill called this guy a creep. She called him a creep because he took pictures of her that she had given consent to have taken, and posted them to twitter with the following:

    “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.”

    There is nothing about that which is not creepy. That is the definition of creepy.

  145. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil October 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

    Lolseph Lolbbels

    I find it hard to take comments seriously when they’re issued by a commenter who uses a pun on a Nazi’s name as a pseudonym.

    Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    I think that’s a fat joke, Sheelzebub.

  146. Brandy
    Brandy October 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

    Actually, the Facebook “public figure” page you posted isn’t managed by him – it’s a community page. Those are auto-generated by Facebook using information from Wikipedia. As it says on the bottom, “Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic.”

    That said: he definitely created his own Wikipedia page. (The user who created that page is OctoFluorescent, which is his username & email address.) So your point still stands.

  147. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

    Katniss: I don’t know what circles you run in but I don’t buy it. There is a large difference between what will get a man labeled “needy” and what will get him labeled as a creep. Needy can be annoying but isn’t creepy. Creepy is acting like you don’t care about other people’s boundaries, or, say, using how a woman dresses against her in internet arguments, especially by implying that she’s “asking for it”. In this case the creep label is accurate and well deserved.

    That’s not how I see the word used. Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    It’s synonymous to using the word faggot when not referring to a homosexual man in a hateful way. You might not be hateful to homosexuals but doing so perpetuates a negative connotation to this whole group of people.

  148. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

    Sheelzebub: Anything that a woman says that hurts a d00d’s fee-fees is a witchhunt.Glad to clear that up for you. ;)

    Ohhh, now I get it!

  149. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 3:35 pm |

    Janet loves her 10-dollar words.

  150. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

    FashionablyEvil:
    Lolseph Lolbbels

    I find it hard to take comments seriously when they’re issued by a commenter who uses a pun on a Nazi’s name as a pseudonym.

    I think that’s a fat joke, Sheelzebub.

    You can dismiss his comments because he has uses a play on a Nazi’s name, but I prefer to dismiss them because they’re obvious bullshit.

  151. Kes
    Kes October 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

    Janet: That’s not how I see the word used.Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    It’s synonymous to using the word faggot when not referring to a homosexual man in a hateful way.You might not be hateful to homosexuals but doing so perpetuates a negative connotation to this whole group of people.

    Ohmyfuckingod who are you? What blog do you think you’re posting on?! This isn’t “The Spearhead”, and the idea that being emotionally needy or vulnerable is inherently un-masculine is not a feminist idea. In fact, mostifnotall feminists outright reject it. “Creep”, in this context, is referring to a man who sexualized female protesters without their knowledge or consent, and then proceded to Google-stalk a woman who criticized his behavior. This is not “emotionally needy”, it is boundary-crossing and creepy as all hell.

  152. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

    Janet:

    It’s synonymous to using the word faggot when not referring to a homosexual man in a hateful way.You might not be hateful to homosexuals but doing so perpetuates a negative connotation to this whole group of people.

    You can call us gay, we’re using gay now. Or queer.

    I think anytime a non-queer person uses the word faggot they do kind of hate us a bit. Maybe they don’t know they do… but they do. It’s not the word you use if you think of queer people as ‘real people, like us.”

    So, not quite getting where the association goes.

  153. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

    Mr. Kristen J.:
    To ignore the delicious troll feast for a moment and riff off one of Jill’s points – it become increasingly clear that the OWS movement is not beginning to resemble the old boss in a number of ways.The lack of response from OWS community around the racist signage, the treatment of objections by indigenous people, the sexual assaults, and the misogynistic videos indicates that in the interests of “community building” people are ignoring the harm caused to marginalized people.If the OWS movement build a consensus to protect its members then I find it to be completely uncompelling.In all likelihood its just transfering power from one group of white men to another group of white men.

    Way to ruin the party with an on-topic point. Gosh.

    And yeah, this. Which is sad, really, because for a moment there I’d overcome my suspicions about the nature of populist organising and the tendency to fail to centre and address difference and began to see the possibility of an anti-capitalism centred in true solidarity. And I mean, I like when my ambivalence errs on the side of optimism, but boy does this shit make it rare.

  154. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

    zuzu:
    Janet loves her 10-dollar words.

    I haven’t noticed any value in a single one.

  155. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

    Janet: That’s not how I see the word used. Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    Poor, poor vulnerable rape-joking Greenstreet.

  156. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

    Kes: Ohmyfuckingod who are you? What blog do you think you’re posting on?! This isn’t “The Spearhead”, and the idea that being emotionally needy or vulnerable is inherently un-masculine is not a feminist idea. In fact, mostifnotall feminists outright reject it.

    Read from my original post, that’s my point. It’s not appropriate to use this word as a feminist in any context.

    I didn’t know what the spearhead is but it seems like they blog about male issues regarding gender roles. Are you saying that it’s somehow not feminist of me to consider how men are affected by gender roles? This is the type of attitude I find troublesome.

    1. Lauren
      Lauren October 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm | *

      I didn’t know what the spearhead is but it seems like they blog about male issues regarding gender roles. Are you saying that it’s somehow not feminist of me to consider how men are affected by gender roles? This is the type of attitude I find troublesome.

      Janet, you’re not educating anyone here. The patriarchy hurts men, too. The issue is putting the need of one one man not to be called a creep above the needs of women filmed and sold as a self-promotional tool masquerading as pro-revolution propaganda, and above another woman’s need not to be sexually harassed in response to calling him on his misogyny (proving her point). The man you’re protecting here is attempting to use internet back-channels to purposely draw anti-feminist attention to this blog post — not to defend the OWS cause, not to advance feminism (as he claims), not to further the conversation as he claims, but to retaliate. The man is a public figure, or seeks to be one, and has designed himself as one that courts controversy. And so he has.

      Whatever process you’re using to define “creepy”, the general usage is to describe someone perverted, someone who seeks sexual gratification through dishonesty. This is a gender-neutral term, and an accurate term to describe Greenstreet’s actions through the making of the video and the defending of it. Your reframing of the term is dishonest and weird, and it’s clear whatever feminist theory you’re pulling this from didn’t convince you it’s worthwhile. So, troll.

  157. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 3:47 pm |

    Janet: That’s not how I see the word used.Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    It’s synonymous to using the word faggot when not referring to a homosexual man in a hateful way.You might not be hateful to homosexuals but doing so perpetuates a negative connotation to this whole group of people.

    Did you just draw equivalence between “creep” and “faggot”? Cos, like, not to be uncivil, but as a queer man (and thus someone who falls into the categories the first according-to-Janet oppresses and the second actually does): Fuck you. When creepy men have a suicide rate of approximately 6 times that of their non-creepy counterparts, we’ll talk. Until then, one of those things is not at all, not even a little bit, like the other.

  158. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 19, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

    ‘Troll’ on Femineste:
    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the original author or other commenters.

    Well, as the Official Figure Head (sic) of Feminism, Jill often disagrees with my comments. In fact, I may be one of the most curmudgeonly commenters here! And while the FHoF sometimes might wish I would leave, she has never called me a troll.

    Funny, that.

  159. Nahida
    Nahida October 19, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

    But Jiiiiiiiiiill. Why can’t I gawk at all the pretty laaaaadiesss?

    I’m going to send all my friends to troll you meanie feminists!!!1! YOU FEMINISTS ARE SO IMMATURE GAWSH!

  160. Richard
    Richard October 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

    “But I actually haven’t seen very many liberal men being like, ‘This is fucked up,’ period.”

    This is fucked up, period.

    I just have a habit of not trying to point out the fucked upped-ness of, well, most sexist matters because it usually results in a protracted argument with anonymous people who are either:
    a) The most insensitive, ignorant, and willfully spiteful people ever allowed regular internet access or,
    b) Pretending to be a) in order to evoke an emotional reaction from people.

    Ultimately no-one learns anything and nothing changes.

  161. Nahida
    Nahida October 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

    Janet: I didn’t know what the spearhead is but it seems like they blog about male issues regarding gender roles. Are you saying that it’s somehow not feminist of me to consider how men are affected by gender roles?

    You might want to actually READ first…

  162. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 19, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

    syncretism

    Ohhhh … I just had an English-major-gasm.

  163. L
    L October 19, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

    Janet: I didn’t know what the spearhead is but it seems like they blog about male issues regarding gender roles. Are you saying that it’s somehow not feminist of me to consider how men are affected by gender roles? This is the type of attitude I find troublesome.

    If you paid attention you would know that feminists are not fans of rigid gender roles for men or women, and never ever have been.

  164. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

    Nahida: You might want to actually READ first…

    Read what? The spearhead? How is the spearhead relevant to my thread of posts? It’s been an inconsequential tangent so far.

  165. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

    L: If you paid attention you would know that feminists are not fans of rigid gender roles for men or women, and never ever have been.

    That’s the point… It’s not nice to perpetuate harmful male gender roles through crypto-sexism.

  166. j.
    j. October 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

    Kes, #169: Yeah, “Janet” strikes me as yet another MRA troll posting under a woman’s name. All the usual signs: accusations of “ruining feminism,” of being “emotional,” bullshit terms like “crypto-sexism,” whining about the word “creep,” pretending that Jill is slandering all men, and blaming PHMT on women.

    Also, “our community,” “WE need to speak out…” — those raise red flags too. Most sexist assholes trolling under a woman’s name emphasize strongly that they’re women in ways that come off as phony to me.

  167. Bill
    Bill October 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    Come on now, people. Is it really necessary to be so mean to each other in the comment section of some blog post? I think a more civil tone would be far more constructive. Don’t let the trolls win!

    But with that being said, I think we can all agree that this guy is a joke. He contributes nothing with his creepy website and unfunny comments, and I can only hope that people aren’t drawn into thinking that he represents anything or anybody. Because he doesn’t.

    So, please don’t be too quick to generalize an entire movement or gender based on this idiot. And if you’re worried about the lack of disapproval of him, I think the explanation most likely lies in the type of people who would visit his site (you can draw your own conclusions to what that said type is).

  168. Kierra
    Kierra October 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    Evidence? I’ve had needy boyfriends who weren’t creepy. I’ve also been around creepy guys who were not needy. The only times I’ve seen “creepy” conflated with “needy” is when MRA trolls show up to offer explanations for why certain “creepy” behavior that is being criticized was really because the guy is “needy” and so his behavior was justified.

  169. Archie
    Archie October 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

    No time to read the whole comment thread, but I wanted to lay down a marker. I’m an occasional commenter here, and I think my liberal cred is pretty high, and I think that the video and tumblr in question has no place in civilized discourse. I’d like to think that one day that young guy will hang his head in shame over posting it. Can’t come soon enough…

  170. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

    Lauren: The patriarchy hurts men, too. The issue is putting the need of one one man not to be called a creep above the needs of women filmed and sold as a self-promotional tool masquerading as pro-revolution propaganda, and above another woman’s need not to be sexually harassed in response to calling him on his misogyny (proving her point).

    My point was, the issue can be raised with integrity.

    The man you’re protecting here is attempting to use internet back-channels to purposely draw anti-feminist attention to this blog post — not to defend the OWS cause, not to advance feminism (as he claims), not to further the conversation as he claims, but to retaliate. The man is a public figure, or seeks to be one, and has designed himself as one that courts controversy. And so he has.

    I’ve never said anything apologetic about this man’s actions or even referred to him.

  171. Kelly
    Kelly October 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm |

    Jill: For a Yale grad and lawyer, I find it remarkable that you can’t seem differentiate between a “Public Figure” page and personal page. And you pulled it from his personal page. Also – I was being IRONIC. And it was clearly lost on you.

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

  172. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 4:09 pm |

    Bill: Come on now, people. Is it really necessary to be so mean to each other in the comment section of some blog post? I think a more civil tone would be far more constructive. Don’t let the trolls win!

    Don’t worry, I’m normally this mean. It has nothing to do with the trolls at all.

    Though, and go with me on this, you may still want to go back and reread the comments in which Jill pointed out that they were getting rape threats in the comment filter. Oh, and then google “tone argument” and “concern troll”. Those things would probably contextualise the discussion for you a bit.

    You’re welcome!

  173. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

    Apparently troll means someone you don’t agree with on here. Convenient

  174. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

    Janet:

    I’ve never said anything apologetic about this man’s actions or even referred to him.

    So what you’re saying is that you’ve spent the entire discussion in an off-topic rant about the word “creepy”? Yeah, I have no idea why people are assuming bad faith on your part.

  175. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

    Jill,

    Is there anything more that can possibly said on this matter? You have shown incredible patience not closing it down a hundred comments ago. Your blog, your call, but that’s my $.02

  176. Tony
    Tony October 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

    Richard: “But I actually haven’t seen very many liberal men being like, ‘This is fucked up,’ period.” This is fucked up, period.

    I’ll second the ‘this is fucked up’, but I’m not sure how much it means as I’m not really an important writer with a ‘voice’ and thus the power to represent a more generic class of men. I had my say in the previous thread after some real reflection. And the current thread only reinforces the things I voiced there. Rebecca Traister, as usual, says it better than I could.

    (Incidentally, soon after reading the original post, I was chatting with a young woman who has been attending OWS over the past few weeks and she mentioned this very topic out of the blue. She told me she was treated very differently by men in the movement depending on her perceived availability, and that while she understood that this could give her a leg up in ‘the movement’, she wanted to be judged based on her substantive contributions, even if this meant fewer opportunities. I didn’t know if she had seen the ‘Hot Chicks of OWS’ or not, but I think her comments were based off independent personal experiences.)

  177. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

    Janet: I’ve never said anything apologetic about this man’s actions or even referred to him.

    Oh, bullshit. You’re excoriating Jill for calling his actions creepy. And yet you’re not moved to criticize his actions.

    MRA troll.

  178. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    Li: So what you’re saying is that you’ve spent the entire discussion in an off-topic rant about the word “creepy”? Yeah, I have no idea why people are assuming bad faith on your part.

    So you’re saying you’re not calling me a troll because it doesn’t agree with your opinion?

  179. Bill
    Bill October 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    Li: Don’t worry, I’m normally this mean. It has nothing to do with the trolls at all.

    Though, and go with me on this, you may still want to go back and reread the comments in which Jill pointed out that they were getting rape threats in the comment filter. Oh, and then google “tone argument” and “concern troll”. Those things would probably contextualise the discussion for you a bit.

    You’re welcome!

    Please don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not saying you should be friendly towards the people who are trolling. Rather, I think it would be a better idea to simply ignore these people, ban them, and only pay attention to those who are expressing actual opinions in a civil manner.

    There’s no real point in arguing with trolls, their only goal is to get a reaction, the angrier the better. And by responding, they are getting what they want.

  180. W
    W October 19, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

    i don’t often have the opportunity to publicly discredit crappy people, but when that opportunity arises…

    (from the Salon article comments):

    MiddleOfMayhem
    Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    Actually Brandon and I had no idea what would be the outcome of this video/website. We just had an idea and went with it.

    We’ve thought about the “hot dudes” angle, but I’m not into it per se. Let’s see.

    In NO way do I “deride” feminism. I do, however, deride hate, slander, and wasted opportunities. So many “feminists” have been ranting about acts of violence that should enacted on me, using the word “fuck” a lot, and Jill Filipovic (who wrote the Feministe article on me) is a self-declared “hater”.

    I am disappointed that these women are the face of feminism. Such a shame.

    Trust fund? Are you kidding me? :-) I’m an independent filmmaker. Sometimes I just gotta “trust” that the “funds” are coming. Or maybe I won’t make rent.

    i don’t know Steven personally, but i do know Brandon. we grew up in the same top-5-richest-in-the-US suburb outside DC. claiming to be a non-trust-fund struggling independent filmmaker seems a little disingenuous when your co-producer is a non-struggling trust-fund kid. so not only are these two being supremely creepy douchebags, but they’re doing it from the cozy confines of the 1%. Steven can “trust” that the “funds” will be coming from the guy standing next to him, if not from his own bank account (Canon 7D’s don’t come cheap).
    (in all fairness, i don’t particularly remember Brandon as an entirely bad kid, but definitely of the spoiled-rich variety)

  181. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    Fat Steve:
    Jill,

    Is there anything more that can possibly said on this matter? You have shown incredible patience not closing it down a hundred comments ago. Your blog, your call, but that’s my $.02

    What are you kidding? I’m hoping for a FNTT special edition based on this thread.

  182. Tony
    Tony October 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    Kelly: Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    He bragged about how many hits his site got. Has he taken it down? If not, then I guess he’s probably excited about all the attention. Besides, by twittering in response to Jill, he has clearly ‘joined’ the online discussion. If he had wanted this discussion to end before now, he could have caused that to happen.

  183. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

    Janet: So you’re saying you’re not calling me a troll because it doesn’t agree with your opinion?

    Chris: ‘Troll’, elsewhere on the Internet:
    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

    Li: So what you’re saying is that you’ve spent the entire discussion in an off-topic rant about the word “creepy”? Yeah, I have no idea why people are assuming bad faith on your part.

    There. I tried idiot-proofing that for you, Janet.

  184. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

    In retrospect, I would have bolded “extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.”

  185. Janet
    Janet October 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

    By off-topic you clearly mean anything you don’t agree with.

    My posts were on-topic and respectful. The treatment I’m getting here is depressing.

  186. Mr. Kristen J.
    Mr. Kristen J. October 19, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

    Li: Way to ruin the party with an on-topic point. Gosh.

    And yeah, this. Which is sad, really, because for a moment there I’d overcome my suspicions about the nature of populist organising and the tendency to fail to centre and address difference and began to see the possibility of an anti-capitalism centred in true solidarity. And I mean, I like when my ambivalence errs on the side of optimism, but boy does this shit make it rare.

    My bad. All women are cats. All men are dogs. Pilots are perfect. Only beer helmets should be worn to weddings. Jill is always wrong. Everyone should DTMFA.

    (I completely agree with your comment.)

  187. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

    Janet: So you’re saying you’re not calling me a troll because it doesn’t agree with your opinion?

    Scroll up. I never called you a troll. Now, I don’t think you’re commenting in good faith, because my definition of good faith includes not creating obnoxious derails, but I’m willing to accept the possibility that you’re actually serious with this stomach-content-based performance art.

  188. Josef
    Josef October 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

    I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here. People in public do not have an expectation of privacy, so all the people objecting with “oh, but he’s filming them because they’re attractive! that’s creepy!” have no leg to stand on.

    what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else and the right and center’s rank and file are happy to be foot soldiers advancing the cause of corporation and the affluent, the left is riven with arguments because ZOMG someone tried to write that everyone is one race in the mission statement and race is offensive and unPC and they really meant everyone’s all human but since they used the word race I have to blog about how OWS doesn’t accept minorities, or ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.

    ok, go ahead, tell me i’m a moron who can’t see past his privilege, and we can all waste time arguing about whether my egalitarian liberal ass isn’t privilege-sensitive enough while Dimon and Koch and the rest of ‘em laugh at what fools they have the privilege to be lined up against.

  189. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

    Janet: By off-topic you clearly mean anything you don’t agree with.

    My posts were on-topic and respectful. The treatment I’m getting here is depressing.

    The treatment you are getting here is indicative of the quality of your contributions. And no, your contributions have not been on topic, because the topic here, in case the fact that his name being in the title didn’t give it away, is the behaviour of Steven Greenstreet and his supporters, Occupy Wall Street and the objectification of women in brogressive cricles more broadly.

  190. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

    Janet: By off-topic you clearly mean anything you don’t agree with.

    No, idiot, I meant you’re clearly not posting about Steven Greenstreet proving his misogynism one way or another, which is the topic of the post. Are you going to redefine what “off-topic” means now that you’re finished redefining “creepy”? That’s cute, wherein I’m redefining “cute” to mean “horrifically pathetic.”

  191. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

    Mr. Kristen J.: My bad. All women are cats. All men are dogs. Pilots are perfect. Only beer helmets should be worn to weddings. Jill is always wrong. Everyone should DTMFA.

    hahahaha if I ever meet you and Kristen, drinks are on me.

  192. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    Janet:
    By off-topic you clearly mean anything you don’t agree with.

    My posts were on-topic and respectful.The treatment I’m getting here is depressing.

    NO by off-topic she means

    Janet: I’ve never said anything apologetic about this man’s actions or even referred to him.

  193. DoublyLinkedLists
    DoublyLinkedLists October 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    Jill, you are fucking fantastic and this whole post and endeavor are amazing. Thank you.

  194. jrockford
    jrockford October 19, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    @Josef: 6 out of 10 for edginess. You’re gonna have to be way more dismissive of the social implications if you want to be a truly edgy liberal dude.

  195. Kierra
    Kierra October 19, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    I’ve never said anything apologetic about this man’s actions or even referred to him.

    Just because I’m curious. What would be the “appropriate” term to use for calling out someone who offers up unsuspecting women as masturbation fodder, tells rape jokes, and tells someone who disagrees with them that they are “asking for it” if not “creep”? Or are we just not supposed to call out such behavior because it would be “stereotyping men”?

    And just for fun, I consulted thesaurus.com, which came up with: cad, cretin, nuisance, pest, scoundrel, villain, meanie, and snake-in-the-grass as the main synonyms when creep is used as a noun. Strangely enough, needy (or any equivalent) didn’t appear anywhere on the list. So still waiting on examples of needy being creepy. (And just for the record, needy guys can also act creepy, but it isn’t their neediness that makes them creepy, as evidence by the fact that one can be needy without being creepy).

  196. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

    Josef: I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here. People in public do not have an expectation of privacy, so all the people objecting with “oh, but he’s filming them because they’re attractive! that’s creepy!” have no leg to stand on.

    It’s called “right of publicity,” and it’s why Joe Creeptastic from Girls Gone Wild has to get model releases.

  197. Li
    Li October 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

    Josef: what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else

    I couldn’t be bothered engaging with the substance of your post so instead I’m going to poke fun at your use of “literally”.

    And it’s telling that you’re less interested in addressing division by dealing with all the racism and sexism floating about than you are in getting women and people of colour to STFU about it.

  198. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

    Josef:
    I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here. People in public do not have an expectation of privacy, so all the people objecting with “oh, but he’s filming them because they’re attractive! that’s creepy!” have no leg to stand on.

    what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else and the right and center’s rank and file are happy to be foot soldiers advancing the cause of corporation and the affluent, the left is riven with arguments because ZOMG someone tried to write that everyone is one race in the mission statement and race is offensive and unPC and they really meant everyone’s all human but since they used the word race I have to blog about how OWS doesn’t accept minorities, or ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.

    ok, go ahead, tell me i’m a moron who can’t see past his privilege, and we can all waste time arguing about whether my egalitarian liberal ass isn’t privilege-sensitive enough while Dimon and Koch and the rest of ‘em laugh at what fools they have the privilege to be lined up against.

    But you’re perfectly happy to come over here and cry like a baby.

  199. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

    Josef: what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else and the right and center’s rank and file are happy to be foot soldiers advancing the cause of corporation and the affluent, the left is riven with arguments because ZOMG someone tried to write that everyone is one race in the mission statement and race is offensive and unPC and they really meant everyone’s all human but since they used the word race I have to blog about how OWS doesn’t accept minorities, or ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.

    I can’t imagine why OWS might have any kind of problem attracting women, racial minorities and GLBTQ folks.

  200. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 4:44 pm |

    Lauren: The patriarchy hurts men, too.

    Oh, so now you’re claiming to speak for men as well? Jesus.

    /speaking for Jesus

  201. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

    Kierra: Just because I’m curious. What would be the “appropriate” term to use for calling out someone who offers up unsuspecting women as masturbation fodder, tells rape jokes, and tells someone who disagrees with them that they are “asking for it” if not “creep”?

    Zuzu won’t let me say it.

    (Please zuzu, take that in the humorous spirit it was meant.)

  202. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    Also, after reading these comments, I’m definitely considering cutting my own penis off just to get the women of the View off my back.

  203. Archie
    Archie October 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm |

    OK Josef, you’re a moron who can’t see past his own privilege because you don’t understand that in order to succeed as a movement OWS needs to have a committed constituency that includes people of all kinds. If you don’t condemn the creepiness, you side with the creep and alienate a sizable number of potential constituents.

  204. Shinobi
    Shinobi October 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

    Not making videos that objectify women is actually LESS WORK than making those videos. We’re not asking this sexist douchecanoe to DO something, we are asking him to NOT go OUT OF HIS WAY to objectify other activists. You’d think we were asking him to write 1000 pages on feminist gender theory.

    I think the only thing feminists would really like for him and his delightful friends to actually do is to shut up and listen. Is this really that hard?

  205. L
    L October 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

    Josef: I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here. People in public do not have an expectation of privacy, so all the people objecting with “oh, but he’s filming them because they’re attractive! that’s creepy!” have no leg to stand on.

    I’m just gonna go ahead and repeat what I said on the other thread on this topic: If you don’t find the 24/7 constant objectification of women everywhere forever a worthwhile topic, and you think that a woman’s entire worth as a person being tied to her attractiveness to random dudes is A-OK, then I don’t think you should call yourself a liberal. Also, “egaltarian”? You must be joking?

    And, hint: it is not the people who claim sexism and racism that are dividing the movement, it’s the people that are being sexist and racist.

  206. petpluto
    petpluto October 19, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

    Josef:
    I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here. People in public do not have an expectation of privacy, so all the people objecting with “oh, but he’s filming them because they’re attractive! that’s creepy!” have no leg to stand on.

    The line is that he reduced them to “hot chicks” and objectified them. To give men erections so they’d come out to a protest. Which is creepy. Both because he is using women as a motivator and because he wanted men who saw that as a great way to go in regard to women showing up at a rally. Also, you’re apparently not as liberal as they come, because you don’t see how taking actions that exclude or alienate segments of a population who may want to be a part of this movement is regressive, damaging, and wrong.

    what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else and the right and center’s rank and file are happy to be foot soldiers advancing the cause of corporation and the affluent, the left is riven with arguments because ZOMG someone tried to write that everyone is one race in the mission statement and race is offensive and unPC and they really meant everyone’s all human but since they used the word race I have to blog about how OWS doesn’t accept minorities, or ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.
    What I find amazing is that a bunch of white guys don’t understand why groups of marginalized people want to own part of this movement instead of having yet another group of white guys telling the rest of us what’s really the important thing to focus on. I get that Wall Street and the government are fucked up. What I don’t get is why I should put up with the same sexist and racist bullshit from my supposed allied as I do from the people I disagree with on these matters. Your movement means little to me if I’m being harassed, objectified, feel unsafe, feel threatened, and feel dismissed by many other members of the movement. You don’t get to dismiss concerns for how the movement is shooting itself in the foot and then claim we’re not doing enough to focus on what you care about. I’d focus on what you care about if you’ll help us get what you care about in order.

    ok, go ahead, tell me i’m a moron who can’t see past his privilege, and we can all waste time arguing about whether my egalitarian liberal ass isn’t privilege-sensitive enough while Dimon and Koch and the rest of ‘em laugh at what fools they have the privilege to be lined up against.
    Ok, I will. You’re a moron if you think that your movement is the one chosen movement. You’re banking on the idea that OWS is the one true path and that people who care about the issues OWS encompasses can work for change regarding those issues only through OWS. That is fundamentally untrue. Piss off enough of the people who support this cause but are driven away based on how certain segments of the population are treated within that movement, and you stop growing. You may even start shrinking.

    There’s an easy fix. Recognize that the people you’re insulting; the people you’re objectifying; and the people you’re ignoring; are people worth respecting as well. And to them, this movement is old hat, where their concerns and their issues are ignored and ridiculed ‘for the greater good’. And that they have a right to say, fuck that shit and not support you. Because you can’t be bothered to support them.

  207. petpluto
    petpluto October 19, 2011 at 4:59 pm |

    Screwed up my tags! :-(

  208. Tony
    Tony October 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

    Josef: what I find amazing is that while the affluent are literally screwing everybody else and the right and center’s rank and file are happy to be foot soldiers advancing the cause of corporation and the affluent, the left is riven with arguments

    Actually, there’s nothing “leftist” about going to a rally — any rally, soley because of the “hot chicks.” There’s no political content in “hot” at all. Guys jerking it over hot chicks doesn’t threaten the Koch brothers… in fact the Koch brothers would probably pay all their billions for progressive men to spend all their time jerkin it and progressive women be seen as sex objects in all contexts while the Koch brothers screw us over. Greenstreet’s video is politically right masquerading as progressive, it reinforces traditional oppressions and barriers, and the supposed added value contributes nil to the movement because anyone who will only become interested by something like OWS because they had a boner on the internet is not someone who is going to stick around long enough to make a difference. If they truly care, they will find their way into the movement by other means. If not, then we don’t want them around anyway. Meanwhile the women of OWS are part of the movement and any disrespect or trivialization of their work is also disrepect and trivialization of the movement.

  209. Sandy
    Sandy October 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

    LOL @ the idea that Feministe is an echo chamber. Ahahahahaha. No, there’s actually a lot of arguing and disagreement around here. But there’s an overall recognition of really egregious sexism when it sails in and stinks up the place.

  210. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 5:17 pm |

    Steven is also mad that I use the f-word sometimes. It is a shame that I am the face of feminism, he says.

    Just read this comment (I assume Steven is ‘MiddleOfMayhem’) and I did learn two things I didn’t know about Jill.

    1) Apparently she is a self-declared ‘hater.’ I guess I missed that declaration, but I must admit I have noticed her posts display a hatred for sexism, racism, and xenophobia.

    2) She has the same surname as my friend Katia, who is originally from Liege, Belgium but now lives in Grantham, Lincolnshire, where she works as a gun engraver. http://www.gunengraving.co.uk/ She will be thrilled to know there’s another Filipovic out there.

  211. P.T.Smith
    P.T.Smith October 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm |

    LOL @ the idea that Feministe is an echo chamber. Ahahahahaha. No, there’s actually a lot of arguing and disagreement around here. But there’s an overall recognition of really egregious sexism when it sails in and stinks up the place.

    Seriously. Okay, so I normally only come out to post when I disagree with the consensus, or have a joke I feel like making, but even though I don’t nearly have the time to read all the posts in this thread, I’m posting to say “what the hell” and support the echo chamber of common decency.

  212. outrageandsprinkles
    outrageandsprinkles October 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

    Li: Did you just draw equivalence between “creep” and “faggot”? Cos, like, not to be uncivil, but as a queer man (and thus someone who falls into the categories the first according-to-Janet oppresses and the second actually does): Fuck you. When creepy men have a suicide rate of approximately 6 times that of their non-creepy counterparts, we’ll talk. Until then, one of those things is not at all, not even a little bit, like the other.

    Just wanted to say greatest comment ever!

  213. Camille
    Camille October 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

  214. Camille
    Camille October 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

    John, maybe you should have put a little more thought into that whole “rape isn’t funny, but rape without an erection = lmao” comment. There’s nothing funny about a rapist who is unable to get an erection, getting frustrated by that fact and then deciding that using a knife or other material object will inflict the kind of damage (if not worse) that his body won’t let him. And the reason why rape isn’t taken more seriously is precisely because people, especially men, still think it’s okay to make a joke about it.

  215. james
    james October 19, 2011 at 5:37 pm |

    “(b) he has now made a minor internet sensation of himself by creating a blog that is premised on posting photos of women without their consent, just because they happened to be hot and in public.”

    Isn’t making a public point of your presence the entire point of protesting? People go to a protest because they want their message spread and want people to know they were there protesting. Trying to restricting people spreading pictures of protests is the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing.

  216. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

    james: Trying to restricting people spreading pictures of protests is the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing.

    Breathtaking.

  217. Off White
    Off White October 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

    I just read Jill’s post, but not the comments, so don’t assume this is in response to anything anyone else has said.

    As a 53 year old guy, I’ve had a lot of erections in my life, but I’ve never thought they legitimized anything. Greenstreet’s jive is fucked up, just flat out wrong, and his justifications underline my impression that he’s a total creeper.

    Please though, don’t let his schtick stop anyone from attending a protest.

  218. Stacy
    Stacy October 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm |

    “Trying to restricting people spreading pictures of protests is the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing.”

    OMG this is my favorite comment ever.

  219. Off White
    Off White October 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm |

    I suppose its a blessing Greenstreet hasn’t gone public with his collection of “Upskirt Pics of Hot Chicks at Protests” but that is the next logical step in his progression, isn’t it?

  220. Hattie
    Hattie October 19, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

    Remember that these crappy guys are also the 99%. We gotta educate them.

  221. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 5:55 pm |

    james: People go to a protest because they want their message spread and want people to know they were there protesting.

    Yeah; and it’s impossible for women to want their message spread without it being legitimized or delegitimized on the basis of their looks, amirite ladies? JUST LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST.

  222. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

    OK, random things and I just cannot find all of the comments to cut and paste, so:

    Janet, Chris already said that about ZOMG FEMINISTE DOESN’T LIKE OPPOSING OPINIONS WAH. Again. Originality goes a long way.

    Josef–You’re cute. Now dance.

    Mr. Kristen J–now I want to get married, just so I can wear a beer helmet.

    And to whoever said that we’re not asking Greenstreet to write a 1,000 word treatsie on gender politics, actually? THAT WOULD BE HILARIOUS. Think of the failtastic potential. Look, I will cook dinner for whichever regular here can get him to do that. I will cook it according to your specificiations. (Though, if you like fish, I have some watermelon radishes that are divine when they are sauteed with garlic, onion, and fresh herbs and placed as a chutney over grilled or baked fish drizzled with just a hint of sesame oil. Or, if you prefer totally vegan, baked stuffed butternut or sweet georgia squash with a side of bitter greens and roasted beets. Or stuffed tomatoes. You get the idea.)

  223. preying mantis
    preying mantis October 19, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

    Stacy:
    “Trying to restricting people spreading pictures of protests is the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing.”

    OMG this is my favorite comment ever.

    I want to take that comment home and keep it as a pet. I’ll walk it twice a day and everything.

  224. james
    james October 19, 2011 at 6:00 pm |

    The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

  225. iiii
    iiii October 19, 2011 at 6:01 pm |

    “This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism expressed by political allies is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.

    It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/ trans men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned—and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.”
    –Melissa McEwan
    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-calling-out-fellow.html

  226. petpluto
    petpluto October 19, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

    james:
    The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    The irony is that you don’t get why we would want women protesters to be judged on the merits of their arguments and not whether they’re conventionally attractive or not.

    In other words, treated like protesters, not “women protesters”.

  227. preying mantis
    preying mantis October 19, 2011 at 6:08 pm |

    james:
    The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    If your choice is between “being hot” and “being ugly” when you are publicly demonstrating against a corrupt economic system that is depriving the majority of your fellow citizens of everything from their happiness to their lives, I think the USS Agency has already left port.

  228. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm |

    james:
    The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    That sound? It be the 5:20 Point, sailing right over your haid.

  229. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 6:11 pm |

    Stacy:
    “Trying to restricting people spreading pictures of protests is the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing.”

    OMG this is my favorite comment ever.

    You must not be a big fan of grammar.

  230. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 6:14 pm |

    james: The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women,

    Why are you narrow-minded enough to think the attractiveness of women is a) of any importance and b) necessarily all or nothing? I’m not a lawyer. Is it appropriate to say these are false premises? Kristen? Jill? Zuzu? (And before your answer, your opinions only matter if you’re hot. It’s not that I’m objectifying you; it’s that I’m bringing attention to the feminist cause to more people, i.e. men).

    james: the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    Not denying anyone’s agency! Please don’t use words that are meaningless to you, thx.

  231. Computer Soldier Porygon
    Computer Soldier Porygon October 19, 2011 at 6:19 pm |

    Janet:
    I didn’t know what the spearhead is but it seems like they blog about male issues regarding gender roles.

    God, I dream of living in a world where that’s what The Spearhead does.

  232. preying mantis
    preying mantis October 19, 2011 at 6:23 pm |

    Fat Steve: You must not be a big fan of grammar.

    Who needs grammar when you have a comment like that?

  233. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 6:23 pm |

    james:
    The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    That is not an irony. That is what we like to call a consistency. That is because the OP is talking about the reduction of women to their physical appearances, and would still be talking about that in your little hypothetical.

  234. Rich
    Rich October 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm |

    Wow, I return after a root canal and all these comments are posted. This has obviously caused a great stir in the Troll community; all because we tried to point out that this dude is a misogynist.

  235. james
    james October 19, 2011 at 6:30 pm |

    Yeah; and it’s impossible for women to want their message spread without it being legitimized or delegitimized on the basis of their looks, amirite ladies? JUST LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST.

    No, I totally support the Amirite women. If women want to wear headscarfs like in Egypt, so people can’t see their faces and judge them on their looks I respect that. But if people want to protest wearing makeup and body paint that’s cool too, and they have a right to be seen and heard.

  236. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 19, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

    Thank God no one has said anything about women who want to be seen and heard a certain way and instead focused on the dickhead men who have assigned their opinions merits based on their appearance.

  237. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 6:37 pm |

    Auguste:
    Also, after reading these comments, I’m definitely considering cutting my own penis off just to get the women of the View off my back.

    Well, feel free to try, you’ll still be a bloke…

  238. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

    Rich: Wow, I return after a root canal and all these comments are posted.

    It’s like you never left the dentist’s chair!

  239. Jackson
    Jackson October 19, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

    I wasn’t offended that he made a rape joke, I was offended that it wasn’t a very funny one.

    You people are taking yourselves a bit too seriously. If we can’t make jokes, even those of questionable taste, we’ve lost a lot as a society.

  240. Rich
    Rich October 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

    james: No, I totally support the Amirite women. If women want to wear headscarfs like in Egypt, so people can’t see their faces and judge them on their looks I respect that. But if people want to protest wearing makeup and body paint that’s cool too, and they have a right to be seen and heard.

    What’s this obsession with Islam and the Middle East? What the fuck does anything in this thread have do with that? These women WERE objectified by a creepy dude. Stay on topic, please!

  241. Rich
    Rich October 19, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    @Zuzu I was thinking the same thing! Love the blog by the way.

  242. Yeny
    Yeny October 19, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

    james:
    Yeah; and it’s impossible for women to want their message spread without it being legitimized or delegitimized on the basis of their looks, amirite ladies? JUST LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST.

    No, I totally support the Amirite women. If women want to wear headscarfs like in Egypt, so people can’t see their faces and judge them on their looks I respect that. But if people want to protest wearing makeup and body paint that’s cool too, and they have a right to be seen and heard.

    Holy crap, the comments are a comedy goldmine!
    I’m sure that the ‘Amirite’ women will be ecstatic to hear that you support them, James.

  243. Stacy
    Stacy October 19, 2011 at 7:01 pm |

    Fat Steve: You must not be a big fan of grammar.

    I guess I am a middling fan of grammar, but I didn’t even notice the mistakes in the comment. I just saw “the kind of thing middle-eastern governments are doing” and everything else flew out of my head. Do you believe in love at first sight? You just see that comment, gleaming like a jewel, like the platonic ideal of anti-feminist commenting absurdity, and you don’t quibble with tense or declension or possessive gerunds or whatnot. You just … admire.

  244. andie
    andie October 19, 2011 at 7:01 pm |

    James.. as a card-carrying Amirite woman, I thank you. My people have been oppressed for too long.

    I mean, wow.

  245. Stacy
    Stacy October 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

    Also, block quotes are completely beyond my poor abilities. I do know what irony is, though, so I do have that going for me.

  246. Yeny
    Yeny October 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

    If I ever play 5-a-side footy again, I’m gonna insist that we call ourselves The Amirite Ladies.

  247. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

    james: The irony is that if people succeed in supressing these photographs and the protestors were sucessfully portraying as being made up of unattractive women, the OP would likely still be complaining. Talk about trying to deny women’s agency.

    It’s like we’ve won at troll bingo a hundred times or something.

  248. Alison
    Alison October 19, 2011 at 7:10 pm |

    Yeny:
    If I ever play 5-a-side footy again, I’m gonna insist that we call ourselves The Amirite Ladies.

    I was actually thinking The Amirite Ladies would be a perfect name for a pub trivia team. Every time they get an answer correct, they can shout at the other teams “AMIRITE??!”

  249. Anonymouse
    Anonymouse October 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm |

    So I had no idea that Jill was the Figurehead of Feminism and Feministe was exactly like a middle-eastern government! Trolls are so educational!

  250. james
    james October 19, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

    “The irony is that you don’t get why we would want women protesters to be judged on the merits of their arguments and not whether they’re conventionally attractive or not.”

    No, both their arguments have merit. But if you have two people whose arguments have merit, who are you going to put in front of a camera or post pictures of – the attractive one or the not-so-attractive one? I mean, come on, its a bit of a no brainer.

  251. Best Art Blog » Steven Greenstreet proves he's definitely not a misogynist by …

    [...] posted here: Steven Greenstreet proves he's definitely not a misogynist by … Categories: Uncategorized Tags: all-kinds, dudes, meet-hot, meet-people, past-boyfriend, People, [...]

  252. violet
    violet October 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm |

    Josef:
    “ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.”

    Because, MORON, this isn’t one, single, teensy-weensy yellow-polka-dot-bikini fucking video. This shit, is, and continues to be, our 24/7 fucking reality as women. Handy hint: it ceases to be funny/ironic/students-mucking-about after the 270 MILLIONTH tv programme/music video/magazine cover/fashion-show/advertising campaign/political protest video about serious political and economic issues in our society……HEY LOOK THAT CHICK HAS FANTASTIC TITS LOLZ!1!1!!

    Well, that sure makes up for the wage gap.

    And Jill, whilst I have laid into you on other threads (which I stand by), you are absolutely fucking spot on with this. Keep writing.

  253. andie
    andie October 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm |

    hmm.. no-brainer…

    Nope. Too easy.

    (also, these are not women being selected to be pretty talking heads for the movement – which would be irritating enough – these are women that were picked out based on their hotness to be fap material with a cause)

  254. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 7:49 pm |

    james: “The irony is that you don’t get why we would want women protesters to be judged on the merits of their arguments and not whether they’re conventionally attractive or not.”No, both their arguments have merit. But if you have two people whose arguments have merit, who are you going to put in front of a camera or post pictures of – the attractive one or the not-so-attractive one? I mean, come on, its a bit of a no brainer.

    We don’t see that with men, nor do we see men get judged for who they are based on their looks. Not at the level women are. Men aren’t used as bait to attract women to the protest/movement. No one is wringing their hands over the “agency” of men to be sexeee. Oddly enough, it’s a no-brainer that men don’t have to be hawt to count.

    The only no-brainer I’m seeing is your “logic,” which equates criticism of the beauty standard for women (but not so much for men) with “women have no right to wear makeup to a protest” and “destroy women’s agency.” (You obviously don’t know what that word means, son.)

    This “reveloution” of yours is looking a lot like the bullshit we’ve got with the neocons. No, thanks.

  255. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 7:51 pm |

    Oh, crap, what was I thinking taking this douchebag troll seriously?

    You’re so cute when you troll, James.

    Now dance.

  256. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

    violet:
    Josef:
    “ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.”

    Because, MORON, this isn’t one, single, teensy-weensy yellow-polka-dot-bikini fucking video.This shit, is, and continues to be, our 24/7 fucking reality as women. Handy hint: it ceases to be funny/ironic/students-mucking-about after the 270 MILLIONTH tv programme/music video/magazine cover/fashion-show/advertising campaign/political protest video about serious political and economic issues in our society……HEY LOOK THAT CHICK HAS FANTASTIC TITS LOLZ!1!1!!

    Well, that sure makes up for the wage gap.

    And Jill, whilst I have laid into you on other threads (which I stand by), you are absolutely fucking spot on with this. Keep writing.

    Wage gap is BS.

  257. Lara Emily Foley
    Lara Emily Foley October 19, 2011 at 7:59 pm |

    Dear Chis you’re link reminds me of a wonderful song

    We have a game on this blog and bingo is its name-o
    B-I-N-G-O
    B-I-N-G-O
    B-I-N-G-O
    B-I-N-G-O
    And Bingo is it’s Name-O

  258. scrumby
    scrumby October 19, 2011 at 8:06 pm |

    O.k. I just read through all 250 comments and maybe this is just so old-feministe-troll-hat that no one else feels the need to correct it but: people actually think you can’t rape someone without an erect dick? Finally we see how not wasting a day watching Law and Order reruns can make you dumber.

  259. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 8:11 pm |

    Jackson:
    I wasn’t offended that he made a rape joke,I was offended that it wasn’t a very funny one.

    You people are taking yourselves a bit too seriously. If we can’t make jokes, even those of questionable taste, we’ve lost a lot as a society.

    So true. If men can’t laugh with each other about the sexual violence members of their gender inflict, largely but not exclusively on women and girls, then the terrorists have won.

  260. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 8:12 pm |

    But Jill, that child has way more common sense and greater understanding of power dynamics than any of our trolls.

  261. n.
    n. October 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

    1. Rape without an erection is still rape, and therefore falls into the larger category of “Things That Are Not Funny.” 2. Having someone persistently trying to put a flaccid penis into you, even during the course of crappy consensual sex, is still a pretty painful experience. 3. No sort of sex is equivalent to putting anything into a parking meter, because a parking meter cannot think or feel. Equating sex to an interaction with an inanimate object is part of objectification. 4. Comments or actions may be “in jest” and still be harmful or cruel. See also: bullying.

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

  262. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

    Jill:
    This seems pertinent to this thread: http://www.internetargument.com/

    Too right. At least the discourse over on the two Salon articles on Steve’s video is relatively civil.

  263. james
    james October 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

    “Yes, obviously my entire point is that pretty women who wear makeup don’t have a right to be seen and heard.”

    Well, if that really is the case maybe MS 1% COPORATE LAWYER should not try to stop people spreading the message by posting pictures of women expressing themselves at a public protest.

    “He’s not a TV producer deciding which of two articulate people to put in front of the camera.”

    Well I thought they were very articulate. You should watch the video and try to engage with their views rather than try to silence and stereotype them based on there looks.

    “He’s a dude taking pics of hot chicks and posting them on the internet.”

    So is this the real crime? Because he is not alone, there are lots of Steven Greenstreets out there.

  264. Pidgey
    Pidgey October 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

    Paraphrasing Chris’ link: “Women don’t earn less than men because of sexism. Women earn less than men because society happens to value women’s knowledge, skills, and experience less than we value men’s knowledge, skills, and experience. So you SEE!? Totally Not Sexist. Just a huge coincidence.”

  265. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm |

    Amirite laydeez – Chris says we’re not being civil enough! Could we please all try to be a little teeny bit nicer when we’re talking about how fucking sick and tired we are of being the sex class? Of being raped, assaulted, murdered in record numbers? Of being told our rapes, assaults, and murders are inconsequential compared to real suffering in “the Middle East,” as one eloquent douche-hat put it? Of being told rape jokes are funny and we’re just to stoopid and thin-skinned to see why? Of being told you can’t be raped by an object, only by an erect penis? Of being told we are c***, bitches, whores, humorless, castrating, emasculating, and insufficiently HAWT for dudes’ masturbating?

    Come n. It’s as though no one has ever taught you to be NICE.

  266. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 8:27 pm |

    Because he is not alone, there are lots of Steven Greenstreets out there.

    No shit, Sherlock. Have you just figured this out? Because women have long been aware of the fact that many men consider it open season on our bodies because we dare to step outside our homes.

  267. Rachel
    Rachel October 19, 2011 at 9:06 pm |

    PrettyAmiable: Andddd feel validated in my reasons described elsewhere for wanting nothing to do with the 99%. Would much rather be my 1/300,000,000, thanks. No jerkfaces in my %.

    agreed. seriously, frak that.

  268. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 9:09 pm |

    Miss 1% lawyer? Really? Do people not fucking get that the 1% is somewhere around $17 million+ in net worth, and $600K+ in yearly income?

  269. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

    Chris: Wage gap is BS.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

    Oh, yeah, a libertarian prick says so with no facts or math to back it up. I can totally see why a fucking idiot like you would buy into it.

  270. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

    tinfoil hattie: laydeez – Chris says we’re not being civil enough!

    Chris is a total dick.

    Sincerely,
    one of the menz

  271. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

    Fat Steve: Chris is a total dick.

    Sincerely,
    one of the menz

    Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.

  272. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm |

    Jill: Also, sorry, but I just have to LOL at this for a minute. At $200,000 in debt, I am hardly Ms. 1%. But ok.

    I LOL’d as well.

  273. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

    Chris: Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.

    I don’t hate myself, I hate you.

  274. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 9:25 pm |

    Chris: Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.

    I just filled up my WHOLE Troll Bingo card!

  275. Chris
    Chris October 19, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

    zuzu: I just filled up my WHOLE Troll Bingo card!

    Well that about does it for me. Thanks for reminding me why fundamentalists in any group, are extreme assholes. Good night y’all! Good luck with the whole feminism thing.

  276. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    Chris: Too right. At least the discourse over on the two Salon articles on Steve’s video is relatively civil.

    Isn’t it awful when women actually get angry at some dude for reducing us to jerk-off material yet again? Life is so unfair.

  277. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    Chris: Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.

    You are doing nothing right. You haven’t even been able to string a sentence together. Everyone who has ever met you probably hates you, because you offer nothing to this world. You are an echo chamber for moronic views and completely lacking in insight, and no doubt this stems from your having a tiny penis.

  278. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    “Self-hating.” One of my favorite phrases. Chris, as a feminist-allied man, I don’t hate men as a group. But I do hate, as a group, men who say things like “Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.”

  279. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

    Basically, what I’m saying is, I’m a Misochrisist.

  280. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

    Chris: Well that about does it for me. Thanks for reminding me why fundamentalists in any group, are extreme assholes. Good night y’all! Good luck with the whole feminism thing.

    Well, you are fundamentally a cock. Good luck with the whole dying a virgin thing.

  281. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 9:34 pm |

    Fat Steve: Well, you are fundamentally a cock. Good luck with the whole dying a virgin thing.

    Steve, that ain’t cool. There’s no superiority attached to having sex versus not having it (or vice versa).

  282. andie
    andie October 19, 2011 at 9:47 pm |

    Agree with Iany. I’m sure we can all agree that Chris is an asshat, but let’s try to avoid insults that marginalize others as well.

    (my apologies to those who may have asses for hats.. or vice versa)

  283. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 9:51 pm |

    Iany: Steve, that ain’t cool. There’s no superiority attached to having sex versus not having it (or vice versa).

    I made no judgement on that, I was merely implying that his personality was so repellant that no one would want to sleep with him.

  284. Matt
    Matt October 19, 2011 at 9:53 pm |

    Steve made 2 comments that are quite offensive. Firstly, having a tiny penis says nothing about your value as a person, and secondly, since virginity isn’t real, how is the guy supposed to die a virgin? and even if he dies never having had sex of any kind, not having sex doesn’t make you a failure as a person, because, aces, and also people who choose not to have sex for other reasons.

  285. groggette
    groggette October 19, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    As official spokesperson of the asshat society, no y’all are cool, carry on.

    Also FS, in addition to what people just said about the virgin comment, the small penis quip is also not cool. The size/shape of Chris’s genitalia has no bearing on what a douche he’s being.

  286. Iany
    Iany October 19, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    Fat Steve: I made no judgement on that, I was merely implying that his personality was so repellant that no one would want to sleep with him.

    Mate, you did, own it.

  287. andie
    andie October 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm |

    groggette:
    As official spokesperson of the asshat society, no y’all are cool, carry on.

    Thanks. I appreciate the validation.

  288. Jay
    Jay October 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

    Oh Greenstreet, farting into his cupped hand and sniffing away since…forever.

  289. Kelly
    Kelly October 19, 2011 at 10:14 pm |

    What’s amazing to me–aside from all the dudes who are coming out of the woodwork like, “well, this doesn’t offend ME, so I don’t see what the problem is”–is that Greenstreet has been so incredibly resistant to reflect on whether maybe he made a mistake in judgment–that actually, the video & blog are sexist trash that he should consider taking down. I can’t tell whether he is of the mind that “any publicity is good publicity, even if I’m getting publicity by demeaning others,” or whether he just thinks that it’s ok to demean people as long as there are some folks out there who don’t mind.

    Either way, I, for one, am going to keep going to OWS. I wish I could say that I’d kick this dude in the pants if I see him, but unfortunately, that would cost me my law license. So instead I’ll use the “people’s mic” to ask him to leave. Why? Because the great thing about OWS is that it is a space where EVERYONE is treated as an equal, down to the old homeless person who even the most awesome feminist here wouldn’t usually sit down and have a conversation with. Greenstreet’s video completely contravenes that spirit–it reminds us that actually, we aren’t all equal, even in a supposedly utopian space.

    I’m not going to let Greenstreet take that space away from me, anymore than I’ll let douchebag lawyers elbow me out of my profession or catcallers keep me from wearing whatever the fuck I want to wear. I would love to have some backups, though–so if you’re interested in OWS, please join–we obviously need more feminists there.

    BTW: also awesome–this skeezball has made videos for all sorts of reputable orgs, including HRC (because the gay rights struggle has *NOTHING* to do with sexism). I shudder to think that a donation I made at some point went to putting this creep behind a camera!

  290. zuzu
    zuzu October 19, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

    Chris: Well that about does it for me. Thanks for reminding me why fundamentalists in any group, are extreme assholes. Good night y’all! Good luck with the whole feminism thing.

    Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

  291. Silencing techniques and the many uses of legal shrinkwrap « skycroeser.net

    [...] Allie: “Very true, Facebook themselves could file a complaint since they’re using a screencapture of their layouts and logos. “ [...]

  292. Auguste
    Auguste October 19, 2011 at 10:33 pm |

    zuzu: Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

    Quit talking about his ass! Misandrist objectifier!

  293. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 19, 2011 at 10:39 pm |

    Chris–classic but over used troll tactics. I’m sorry but the “fundamentalist, you haterz, you’re mean to me while I can be a patronizing douchecanoe to you” couple with FLOUNCE! is, well, overdone. I just. . .come on. Your enthusiasm was certainly notable, but if you can’t match the stiff competition here, well, I can’t blame you. Not everyone can cut it.

    And James, come on, it’s really sad when you’re such a fucking bore that Jill had to forcibly flounce you. At least Chris had the good grace to realize that he was not measuring up and spared himself further humiliation. Even the most obtuse troll must know that it’s best to flounce after they throw a tantrum.

    I bet Chris comes back, though. And then FLOUNCES again. And then comes back. And FLOUNCES again. And then comes ba–well, you know the drill.

  294. Matt
    Matt October 19, 2011 at 10:45 pm |

    Good trolls never flounce. Flouncing is for quitters. Good trolls also don’t get banned. If you can’t piss people off without earning a permanent ban, you are just a disgrace to the organization. Trolls who get perma bans are stored in a cave where once a month we cut off their limbs and some breast and butt meat for food. And since trolls regenerate we can keep a poor troll confined indefinitely and we don’t have to shell out for expensive meats when food prices go up. We can just buy whatever is cheapest and cram it down their throats.

    Sheelzebub:
    Chris–classic but over used troll tactics.I’m sorry but the “fundamentalist, you haterz, you’re mean to me while I can be a patronizing douchecanoe to you” couple with FLOUNCE! is, well, overdone.I just. . .come on.Your enthusiasm was certainly notable, but if you can’t match the stiff competition here, well, I can’t blame you.Not everyone can cut it.

    And James, come on, it’s really sad when you’re such a fucking bore that Jill had to forcibly flounce you.At least Chris had the good grace to realize that he was not measuring up and spared himself further humiliation.Even the most obtuse troll must know that it’s best to flounce after they throw a tantrum.

    I bet Chris comes back, though.And then FLOUNCES again.And then comes back.And FLOUNCES again.And then comes ba–well, you know the drill.

  295. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte October 19, 2011 at 10:47 pm |

    I am skeptical that they want more people at OWS, because these antics demonstrate a strong desire to NOT have women show up.

  296. EG
    EG October 19, 2011 at 10:52 pm |

    Don’t be silly, Amanda. This isn’t about some women’s issue. OWS is about important stuff. What could women possibly have to contribute?

    Oh, right. Tits.

  297. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 10:53 pm |

    groggette:

    Also FS, in addition to what people just said about the virgin comment, the small penis quip is also not cool. The size/shape of Chris’s genitalia has no bearing on what a douche he’s being.

    I wasn’t implying any sort of correlation, I was just being deliberately insulting, having found myself extremely pissed off due to the above-mentioned douchery.

  298. Aaron Krager
    Aaron Krager October 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

    As a liberal man and reporter/supporter (yes I can do both) of the Occupy movement… let me just say how fucked up this is. I am with you 100% Jill the people who think this is funny or a good idea are misogynistic idiots. They completely miss the point of this movement towards equality in all forms.

  299. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

    Iany: Mate, you did, own it.

    Show me where I mentioned superiority.

  300. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 19, 2011 at 11:05 pm |

    Matt:
    Steve made 2 comments that are quite offensive. Firstly, having a tiny penis says nothing about your value as a person, and secondly, since virginity isn’t real, how is the guy supposed to die a virgin? and even if he dies never having had sex of any kind, not having sex doesn’t make you a failure as a person, because, aces, and also people who choose not to have sex for other reasons.

    I never said being a virgin makes you a failure as person. Mother Theresa, for example, was pretty good. I merely gave my opinion that no one will ever want to have sex with Chris, because he is a total dick. The small penis thing was merely abuse.

    And god, you sound fucking childish ‘Steve made 2 comments that are quite offensive’ As if any of the women who regularly post on this blog need you to tell them when I’m being offensive. I get called on my shit all the time. When I’m shown I’m wrong I apologize, when I am convinced I’m right I stick to my guns. I hate to break your fantasy but the women here are not castrating man-haters, I am treated with as much respect as anyone (not a huge amount ;) )

  301. Matt
    Matt October 19, 2011 at 11:06 pm |

    Given the common context of mentions of another mans penis size or status of their sex life in a heated, or even not so heated, discussion, even ignoring that virginity is not real…, its incredibly implicit that having a small penis or not having much sex is a negative, something to be ashamed of, a personal defect. I don’t understand how you can continue to argue that you did nothing wrong here. You are clearly supporting patriarchal norms.

    Fat Steve: Show me where I mentioned superiority.

  302. Darque
    Darque October 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm |

    Fat Steve: I never said being a virgin makes you a failure as person. Mother Theresa, for example, was pretty good. I merely gave my opinion that no one will ever want to have sex with Chris, because he is a total dick. The small penis thing was merely abuse.

    And god, you sound fucking childish ‘Steve made 2 comments that are quite offensive’ As if any of the women who regularly post on this blog need you to tell them when I’m being offensive. I get called on my shit all the time. When I’m shown I’m wrong I apologize, when I am convinced I’m right I stick to my guns. I hate to break your fantasy but the women here are not castrating man-haters, I am treated with as much respect as anyone (not a huge amount ;) )

    Yeah, sorry people are being meany-head buzzkills for not liking your dick jokes.

    Oh wait, I forgot that kind of shit is par for the course here. Carry on sir.

  303. m
    m October 19, 2011 at 11:46 pm |

    I can’t believe how many of these comments I just read.

  304. Mr. Kristen J.
    Mr. Kristen J. October 19, 2011 at 11:58 pm |

    Fat Steve: I wasn’t implying any sort of correlation, I was just being deliberately insulting, having found myself extremely pissed off due to the above-mentioned douchery.

    I get where you are coming from, but it may be useful to interrogate why you believe its acceptable to use references to a penis as an insult. If its because as the dominant class, it can’t be oppressive to men to use their genitalia as an insult, I would suggest that men are not the only people with a penis.

  305. Rachel
    Rachel October 20, 2011 at 12:00 am |

    m:
    I can’t believe how many of these comments I just read.

    ME TOO!!! so many! my head hurts now..

  306. Danielle
    Danielle October 20, 2011 at 12:02 am |

    Li: Did you just draw equivalence between “creep” and “faggot”? Cos, like, not to be uncivil, but as a queer man (and thus someone who falls into the categories the first according-to-Janet oppresses and the second actually does): Fuck you. When creepy men have a suicide rate of approximately 6 times that of their non-creepy counterparts, we’ll talk. Until then, one of those things is not at all, not even a little bit, like the other.

    Li,

    Thank you for saying something about this.

    Janet: That’s not how I see the word used.Creepy does equate to your latter example, but it also conflates “needy”, vulnerable behavior that isn’t socially acceptable.

    It’s synonymous to using the word faggot when not referring to a homosexual man in a hateful way.You might not be hateful to homosexuals but doing so perpetuates a negative connotation to this whole group of people.

    Janet,

    I realize that I am late to the party, but I just have to say that I am awed by your complete lack of understanding for why it would be inappropriate to equate your mythically marginalized “creepy” person with the queer community, thus shrinking if not negating our very legitimate marginalization to a size of your choosing. I have to back up the queer folk who’ve said something to you here in saying that it is incredibly disrespectful to do so. The fact that you don’t get that, or in fact feel like acknowledging that you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth (while calling out someone else for what you perceive to be her putting her foot in her mouth) really makes me feel like you shouldn’t be surprised you’re getting shitty treatment on this forum. Demonstrating that you can be respectful of others and gracious about your own missteps goes a long way to earning respect for your own views, however divergent. Until you’re mature enough to understand that give and take, expect to be treated like a troll.

  307. Geo
    Geo October 20, 2011 at 12:05 am |

    holllllly! I came late to the troll party! sadface. let’s see, there was some talk about privacy, way too many posts than I would have cared to read on the word “creep” and a hearty discussion of trolls. And this whole thread has left me hungry for sheelzebub’s cooking, amirite ladies?

    Food for thought for ze trolls: IF I was a woman in the video, I would be horribly offended. But IF the focus of the video was – wow so many people at OWS! – and I was just one in the crowd.. I wouldn’t be offended. That’s because one focus objectifies while the other doesn’t. I think the answer to this has to be education.. most men don’t realize the reality of navigating every day life in the body of a woman – being constantly sexualized, oogled at, objectified. And I am not even talking about wearing tank tops on the streets of NYC in the summer. I am talking about every day encounters, wearing jeans, suits, loose fitting dresses, EVEN pajamas. Without this.. some men are lost on how it feels to be constantly reduced to an object (I was in court yesterday dressed in my most conservative black loose fitting suit… when I walked away I could feel a pair of eyes burning into my backside – the “right” kind of clothing is clearly not an impediment).

    You know how “drunk” goggles are used in classes to show teenagers the perils of drinking? We have to find a way to invent this for men who want to get a peek on how we deal with it every day.

    I will leave you with this, because I have to share it with someone! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgoAgYR4584

  308. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 20, 2011 at 12:07 am |

    Aaron Krager

    Thank you. Because this:

    “Ultimately no-one learns anything and nothing changes.”

    Is completely untrue. *I* learn that I have a better than zero chance of being believed if something serious happens and I report it.

    (Which is why statements like That Other Guy’s strike me as being sexist, despite everything else in them. Aside from the fact that the overall tone is dismissive by way of being defeatist, it very much reads to me as though the only people in That Other Guy’s equation are men.)

  309. Iany
    Iany October 20, 2011 at 12:12 am |

    Fat Steve: Show me where I mentioned superiority.

    That’s the problem, it’s implicit. Asexual people get shamed all the time by the idea that “dying as a virgin” is a bad thing (and yeah, someone else already mentioned that virginity isn’t real). If you’d meant “no one will ever want to be physically intimate with you because of your behaviour,” well, you could’ve said that. But you didn’t. You’re buying into the whole spectrum of slut through to ice maiden (or dyke, depending, which makes no sense). There’s been so much name calling in this thread (moron has been said a grand total of eight times), and that’s because people are angry (and ableist?). Thing is, you can call people on assholery without being one yourself.

    Besides, being an asshole doesn’t preclude people from loving you or having sex with you (or both), if it did there’d be not many of us here. It just makes you an asshole who hopefully one day will learn better.

    So yes, still calling you on it. Say what you mean, not an approximation that gets used to shame people about their sex lives.

    Which is not to say that the person you were insulting wasn’t behaving badly, they were.

  310. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 20, 2011 at 12:28 am |

    m: Yeah, me neither.
    All of this has made me decide that my decision to stay as far as possible from the local protest was 100% justified. Plus, I had an awesome time at a union fundraiser, which was way more fun, had free music, a zumba class, our local congressman.. and.. no creeps! Not a one!
    I pretty much figured that this was going to happen, since most of the protestors are just out of college, and still haven’t gotten that douchey frat-boy programming out of their system. Men under 30 are best avoided.

  311. LadyDreamgirl
    LadyDreamgirl October 20, 2011 at 1:00 am |

    “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it”

    This comment caught my attention for some reason. If I (or Jill or anyone else) choose to dress in a way that shows off my body for leering men (or more realistically because it is how I happen to want to dress) that IS totally cool because the body in question BELONGS TO ME. He doesn’t really seem to actually understand how things work.

  312. Jadey
    Jadey October 20, 2011 at 1:03 am |

    Dammit, I had to go away and be productive today and I missed out on more of the troll fun. In recapping, however, I have this to say:

    Chris: Thank you for your well-thought out reply. Its a welcome change from Sheezlebub’s salty Ad hominems.

    SALT ADDS FLAVOUR.

    Josef: I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale)

    As far as meaningless credentials go, this is right up there with, “FYI, I’m in MENSA.” I mean, coordinates on an unvalidated Internet survey? Amazing. Promise me you actually shelled out the cash to get the “personalised certificate” that they offer. Come back and dance more, Josef!

    Chris: Hey, if I’m hated by a bunch of a bunch of whining, conclusion-jumping, angry, snarky, hyperbolic, man-hating (self-hating in Fat Steve’s case) hypocrites, clearly I’m doing something right.

    Thank you for not hypocritically lowering yourself to the level of “salty ad hominems” – these were in fact rather bland and tasteless.

  313. Robin Turner
    Robin Turner October 20, 2011 at 1:52 am |

    Janet:
    I don’t support Steve’s actions, but I agree it’s a shame you are perpetuating negative stereotypes of feminism.This blog post is done in poor taste, and alienating.You’re not doing our community any favors.

    Hold on, Jill’s article was actually bending over backwards to not perpetuate the negative stereotypes. It’s hardly the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.

  314. EG
    EG October 20, 2011 at 2:07 am |

    Plus, I had an awesome time at a union fundraiser, which was way more fun, had free music, a zumba class, our local congressman.. and.. no creeps! Not a one!

    Wait, I thought you said your congressman was there!

    Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week.

  315. Robin Turner
    Robin Turner October 20, 2011 at 2:07 am |

    My suggestion for Greenstreet’s next project is that he go to an anti-racist protest, make a film with “booty” in the title, then crack a joke about lynching.

  316. Brittany-Ann
    Brittany-Ann October 20, 2011 at 2:24 am |

    Sheelzebub:
    OK, random things and I just cannot find all of the comments to cut and paste, so:

    Janet, Chris already said that about ZOMG FEMINISTE DOESN’T LIKE OPPOSING OPINIONS WAH. Again.Originality goes a long way.

    Josef–You’re cute.Now dance.

    Mr. Kristen J–now I want to get married, just so I can wear a beer helmet.

    And to whoever said that we’re not asking Greenstreet to write a 1,000 word treatsie on gender politics, actually? THAT WOULD BE HILARIOUS.Think of the failtastic potential.Look, I will cook dinner for whichever regular here can get him to do that.I will cook it according to your specificiations.(Though, if you like fish, I have some watermelon radishes that are divine when they are sauteed with garlic, onion, and fresh herbs and placed as a chutney over grilled or baked fish drizzled with just a hint of sesame oil.Or, if you prefer totally vegan, baked stuffed butternut or sweet georgia squash with a side of bitter greens and roasted beets.Or stuffed tomatoes.You get the idea.)

    OH MY GOD I WILL DO ANYTHING IF YOU COOK FOR ME.

  317. Paul Dowling
    Paul Dowling October 20, 2011 at 3:22 am |

    99% certainty that Anonymous and Greenstreet are the same person.

    99% certainty that Kelly is Greenstreet Girlfriend or an idiot.

    99% of certainty that Greenstreet is gay or has issues regarding penis size and misogyny.

  318. TypicalUneducatedMale
    TypicalUneducatedMale October 20, 2011 at 3:34 am |

    Totally ignoring all the aftermath of conversation showing a plethora of misogyny, the original post didn’t exactly explain what WAS so misogynist about a photo blog of attractive women other than it didn’t mention any other qualities of the women in it.

    But does choosing to only talk about one feature of a group of people make the conversation offense?

    I mean I have yet to see anything in Greenstreet’s original post that seems to proclaim that women aren’t of value to the protest movement or that these women have no other qualities of character. Those facits of these people simply aren’t the subject of the blog, does that mean the blog is objectifying simply because it’s goal is only to talk about one subject matter?

  319. Howard Abercrombie
    Howard Abercrombie October 20, 2011 at 3:49 am |

    I just thought I would take a moment out of my day to let you all know that you are morons.

    There is nothing sexist about the video, it is done in extremely good taste.

    Steven Greenstreet never made a “rape joke”, he merely retorted to a stupid comment made by someone else ON HIS PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE.

    Fuck you all, you are douche idiots, and the very reason for which I refuse to adhere to any type of feminism at all.

    Drown on your own saliva you drooling idiots.

  320. Abby Normal
    Abby Normal October 20, 2011 at 5:55 am |

    jibbles: Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    Aaaaand… Fat chick joke! *DING DING DING* YOU ARE WINNAR!

  321. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 20, 2011 at 8:16 am |

    Alison: I was actually thinking The Amirite Ladies would be a perfect name for a pub trivia team. Every time they get an answer correct, they can shout at the other teams “AMIRITE??!”

    omfg, didn’t you say in another thread you live in nyc? Let’s make this happen please.

  322. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Mr. Kristen J.: I get where you are coming from, but it may be useful to interrogate why you believe its acceptable to use references to a penis as an insult.

    Too much listening to Howard Stern growing up in NY.

  323. Mechelle
    Mechelle October 20, 2011 at 8:51 am |

    Fat Steve: Too much listening to Howard Stern growing up in NY.

    Well, one would think you would be intelligent enough to ignore anything Howard Stern says.

  324. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 8:59 am |

    Mechelle: Well, one would think you would be intelligent enough to ignore anything Howard Stern says.

    One would think you’d be intelligent enough to understand a joke .

  325. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 9:02 am |

    Howard Abercrombie:
    I just thought I would take a moment out of my day to let you all know that you are morons.

    There is nothing sexist about the video, it is done in extremely good taste.

    Steven Greenstreet never made a “rape joke”, he merely retorted to a stupid comment made by someone else ON HIS PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE.

    Fuck you all, you are douche idiots, and the very reason for which I refuse to adhere to any type of feminism at all.

    Drown on your own saliva you drooling idiots.

    Chicks=dehumanizing women=sexist

    End of. And that’s just the tittle.

  326. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 20, 2011 at 9:03 am |

    EG: Actually, my congressman’s a pretty classy man. Yeah, he’s either seperated or divorced, but he hasn’t sent pictures of his peen to anyone or been caught doing an impromptu tap dance in a bathroom. And he’s not a creep on Greenstreet’s level.
    Either my standards are way low, or politicians these day really lack class. You decide.
    Also, Janet: Creep, creepy,creep..
    Can’t resist. The word irritates ‘her’ so much. And it irritates me when other women, whether feminists or not, try to rob certain words of their meaning or pretend that certain words are racist or sexist. Dictionaries, they exist.

  327. umami
    umami October 20, 2011 at 9:12 am |

    Ignoring most of the comment thread to mention that Salon article.

    I couldn’t believe it. That video with the camera lens crawling all over the unconsenting* women’s bodies gets described as “romantic” by the guy at Salon, and the women who disliked the video go along with it. Whatever. Definitions of romance vary. As do definitions of “good taste” (see a couple of comments above.)

    But then he goes on to say that women don’t have a reasonable expectation of appearing in a public place without some creep sticking a zoom lens down their cleavage. This is really upsetting. I don’t know if he’s right legally, but it’s not an OK situation if by simply being in public women are supposed to be consenting to this crap. And the women at Salon don’t challenge the creep-apologist on this, and I don’t think they even challenged his assertion that the only real problem was the name of the blog.

    (*I’m sure they didn’t consent to it, because SG has posted a letter from one of them on his blog, assuring him after the fact that she didn’t mind, and it only goes to prove that he didn’t bother to ascertain this before he did his creeper thing.)

  328. zuzu
    zuzu October 20, 2011 at 9:16 am |

    Once again, says the guy who hyperventilated about Alexander Sarsgard making a crack about liberal Swede sexual attitudes.

    Dude, you’re really batting .1000 lately, what with the small dick jokes, the ablist cracks, and the “I saw Trainspitting so it’s totes cool for me to call people cunts.”

    Fat Steve: One would think you’d be intelligent enough to understand a joke .

  329. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 20, 2011 at 9:18 am |

    Howard Abercrombie:
    I just thought I would take a moment out of my day to let you all know that you are morons.

    There is nothing sexist about the video, it is done in extremely good taste.

    Steven Greenstreet never made a “rape joke”, he merely retorted to a stupid comment made by someone else ON HIS PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE.

    Fuck you all, you are douche idiots, and the very reason for which I refuse to adhere to any type of feminism at all.

    Drown on your own saliva you drooling idiots.

    You’re so cute when you’re angry. :)

  330. Souldiver
    Souldiver October 20, 2011 at 9:21 am |

    Lolseph Lolbbels: while encoura

    /Facepalm
    This is what happens when new troll-ish commenters come just to rant and whine without reading other posts in the blog.
    Anyways, reading the comment section I can see their argument barely holds together. It’s not about the FB post, is not about the privacy settings, it’s about how some random dude photographed people without their consent, ignored the message being transmited in the OWS movement and went for teh sex instead.
    I’d hate to be one of those girls, it would feel so invasive and insulting to find my photos on that site, ignoring everything I was there (OWS) for…

  331. Souldiver
    Souldiver October 20, 2011 at 9:22 am |

    Lolseph Lolbbels: Lolseph Lolbbels 10.19.2011 at 2:20 pm
    Seriously? You just used some random guys post on your site, didn’t even hide his name. His rape joke wasn’t even that bad, as what he said is true, it’s pretty hard to rape someone without a boner. He wasn’t specifically talking about raping anyone, also, rape isn’t a woman only problem, I was raped as a kid so fuck you and suck my dick.

    This is the right quote, goddamit! xD

  332. Andie
    Andie October 20, 2011 at 9:30 am |

    Paul Dowling:
    99% certainty that Anonymous and Greenstreet are the same person.

    99% certainty that Kelly is Greenstreet Girlfriend or an idiot.

    99% of certainty that Greenstreet is gay or has issues regarding penis size and misogyny.

    I’m on board with the first two points.. but to the third I can only assume you’re new here and don’t realize that we don’t take kindly to the conflagration of gayness and assholery.

  333. EG
    EG October 20, 2011 at 9:33 am |

    Steven Greenstreet never made a “rape joke”, he merely retorted to a stupid comment made by someone else ON HIS PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE

    …by making a rape joke.

    I didn’t realize that cracking rape jokes on one’s PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE made them not rape jokes. That’s some pretty powerful magic Facebook must have going on.

  334. Emily
    Emily October 20, 2011 at 9:33 am |

    Howard Abercrombie:

    There is nothing sexist about the video, it is done in extremely good taste.

    ‘Sexist’ and ‘distasteful’ do not mean the same thing. ‘Sexist’ and ‘tasteful’ are not mutually exclusive qualities. I don’t care if it’s shot in black and white with some classy tinkling piano music, objectifying women is sexist by nature. A video doesn’t have to be violently degrading in order to objectify women.

    Very creative insults you have there, as well.

  335. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 9:34 am |

    zuzu:
    Once again, says the guy who hyperventilated about Alexander Sarsgard making a crack about liberal Swede sexual attitudes.

    Dude, you’re really batting .1000 lately, what with the small dick jokes, the ablist cracks, and the “I saw Trainspitting so it’s totes cool for me to call people cunts.”

    Zuzu,

    I’ve worked in UK radio for over 10 years and spend half my time over there every year, so please don’t sum up my experiences in a way that you have no idea about.

    Look, if I respond to being insulted with comments that aren’t completely thought through, I’m sorry if you feel that means I’m not entitled to interpret an interview as sexist. Instead of constantly throwing that in my face, just send my Chistmas card to Alexander Sarsgard this year.

    This is the third time you’ve brought up my comments about Swedish sexism (which, by the way, were based on rape statistics, not Sarsgard’s comments,) if you had such a problem with them, I wish you would have made a counter argument in that thread.

  336. Andie
    Andie October 20, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    Fat Steve, I’m usually cool with most of your wise-cracking, but in this thread you’re doing some of the same things that the dudebro’s backing Greenstreet are doing.. ad hominems, using ableist and shaming comments to insult, the ‘it’s a joke’ defence.. and it’s just not cool, you know? Please, I ask. Just stop and think.

  337. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 9:40 am |

    Andie:
    Fat Steve, I’m usually cool with most of your wise-cracking, but in this thread you’re doing some of the same things that the dudebro’s backing Greenstreet are doing.. ad hominems, using ableist and shaming comments to insult, the ‘it’s a joke’ defence.. and it’s just not cool, you know?Please, I ask.Just stop and think.

    OK, I will.

  338. Kierra
    Kierra October 20, 2011 at 9:47 am |

    the original post didn’t exactly explain what WAS so misogynist about a photo blog of attractive women other than it didn’t mention any other qualities of the women in it.

    This post was a follow-up to a previous one where Jill did discuss what was so misogynistic:
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/14/hot-chicks-of-occupy-wall-street/

    But does choosing to only talk about one feature of a group of people make the conversation offense?

    When it’s reducing half the population to being either eye-candy for the more “important” half of the population or erasing them because they don’t measure up on that one oh-so-important trait, then yes.

    I mean I have yet to see anything in Greenstreet’s original post that seems to proclaim that women aren’t of value to the protest movement or that these women have no other qualities of character.

    How about this:

    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.”

    or

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

    where he’s reducing women to just “pretty faces” Not to mention the fact that, aside from the video, none of the pictures give any more context than just the woman’s looks. He isn’t including their thoughts or stories, just pictures of how “hot” they are.

  339. Kaz
    Kaz October 20, 2011 at 10:00 am |

    Look, Steve – the “too repellent to get laid” thing has as an embedded assumption that anyone /would/ get laid if they could and that the reason for someone not getting laid must be that they’re an awful person. If you take asexuality existing into account, then the whole insult doesn’t work – because the response “and you’ll never get laid!” becomes “so? maybe he doesn’t want to get laid. Maybe never getting laid what he’s aiming for. Maybe he just doesn’t care one way or the other. Maybe…” I’m asexual and that comment felt like the same “by the way, I want to tell you that you don’t exist and the idea of your existing is ridiculous” I see all over.

    Also, am going *eyebrow* at the people exhorting us that they are PROGRESSIVES PROGRESSIVES I TELL YOU (hi, you’re adding to my personal list o’reasons that someone’s political affiliation tells me nothing about whether they’re my ally or not) and that it is our duty to support this because aren’t we the 99%?! What are our piddling little problems in comparison? because uh, some of the problems we have are *not piddling* and making it clear you have no problem with throwing me and mine under the bus isn’t actually going to make me want to support you. I also like how next to none of these people have engaged with the point Jill’s made several times: that sexual assaults have been happening at OWS and this is symptomatic of a larger problem.

  340. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 20, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    From the piece W quoted at 201:

    I am disappointed that these women are the face of feminism. Such a shame.

    Aside from the obviously limited understanding of the scope and diversity of feminists/feminist opinions in the world/on the internet, I love the word choice here, abd how it so clearly shows that “faces” are what these people value. Yeah, I’m sure these assholes would love to get to choose what the “face” of feminism looked like. Too bad!

  341. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    Kaz: Look, Steve – the “too repellent to get laid” thing has as an embedded assumption that anyone /would/ get laid if they could and that the reason for someone not getting laid must be that they’re an awful person. If you take asexuality existing into account, then the whole insult doesn’t work – because the response “and you’ll never get laid!” becomes “so? maybe he doesn’t want to get laid. Maybe never getting laid what he’s aiming for. Maybe he just doesn’t care one way or the other. Maybe…” I’m asexual and that comment felt like the same “by the way, I want to tell you that you don’t exist and the idea of your existing is ridiculous” I see all over.

    I’m sorry, I insulted you, Kaz. I was responding in anger to someone who I thought was a total jerk and was not thinking of anything but my definition. In doing so, I can see wasn’t considering how my comments would affect anyone who was a virgin for other reasons.

    Kaz, I think your sexuality is as valid as anyone else’s and I’m sorry my anger at being called a self-hating hypocrite caused me to have blinders on that prevented me acknowledging the many valid reasons people have for not having sex.

  342. Paul Dowling
    Paul Dowling October 20, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    I am not “conflagring” the two. I am suggesting that Steve’s hostility toward women may be a result of unresolved sexual issues.

    Andie: I’m on board with the first two points.. but to the third I can only assume you’re new here and don’t realize that we don’t take kindly to the conflagration of gayness and assholery.

  343. PosedbyModels
    PosedbyModels October 20, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    Apologies for spelling fail.

  344. Leah Jaclyn
    Leah Jaclyn October 20, 2011 at 10:33 am |

    The funny thing about Janet’s “creepy is bad because it’s used to shame needy guys” is that it is the exact opposite of what I’ve heard previously from the MRA crowd usually it’s “creepy is bad because it negatively portrays mens natural inability to not look at women as objects” , I maybe paraphrasing that a bit, but my point is the behaviours that are called “creepy” are exactly that, unwelcome and and sometimes scary. If someone finds your way of approaching them creepy, the only reasonable thing to do is apologise and try something else/leave them alone.

  345. Li
    Li October 20, 2011 at 10:36 am |

    Paul Dowling: I am not “conflagring” the two. I am suggesting that Steve’s hostility toward women may be a result of unresolved sexual issues.

    Given the widespread nature of misogyny and the objectification of women, there must be a whoooooole bunch of latent queers out there if that’s your explanation. Like, in the billion plus range.

  346. Kimberlee
    Kimberlee October 20, 2011 at 10:51 am |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Yeah that’s totally offensive! I mean, all he did was take pictures of women without their knowledge and put them on the internet but that’s okay because he thinks they’re hot!
    I cannot even believe the fact that something he said on Facebook was pictured in an article was the only part of this article that upset you.

  347. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 10:52 am |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny.

    NO. ANY KIND OF RAPE IS NOT FUNNY. omg i just started reading these. I suppose I am in for a real treat (if by treat i mean “rape is funny” comments from dudes) just greeeeat.

  348. Janet
    Janet October 20, 2011 at 10:54 am |

    Danielle:
    Janet,

    I realize that I am late to the party, but I just have to say that I am awed by your complete lack of understanding for why it would be inappropriate to equate your mythically marginalized “creepy” person with the queer community, thus shrinking if not negating our very legitimate marginalization to a size of your choosing.

    That’s a conveniently selective way to view my stance. There are logical parallels between using both words. Never made an equivalence between the two, nor put a rank between the two. The comparison was in how the two words function and that was very clear in my writing.

    I have to back up the queer folk who’ve said something to you here in saying that it is incredibly disrespectful to do so.The fact that you don’t get that, or in fact feel like acknowledging that you’ve stuck your foot in your mouth (while calling out someone else for what you perceive to be her putting her foot in her mouth)

    This is obviously a personal subject for Li. I respect that but I also don’t see him coming from a place of wanting to engage respectfully. There was no point in heading down that direction with him.

    His metric saying homosexual men are 5 times more likely to commit suicide was vacuous in this context. Men are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then women. Yet no one minds comparisons between misogynistic terms and homophobic terms.

    really makes me feel like you shouldn’t be surprised you’re getting shitty treatment on this forum.Demonstrating that you can be respectful of others and gracious about your own missteps goes a long way to earning respect for your own views, however divergent.Until you’re mature enough to understand that give and take, expect to be treated like a troll.

    If that makes you feel better about the nasty behavior in this community then so be it. Can’t change a persons rationalizations.

    What’s truly sad is we only marginalize ourselves when we act this way.

  349. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 20, 2011 at 10:56 am |

    Oh, lord, Janet you’ve hit the concern trolling highlights and done it with a TL;DR post. Bravo! You may win the title yet!

  350. okanogenokano
    okanogenokano October 20, 2011 at 10:56 am |

    Kelly: What’s amazing to me–aside from all the dudes who are coming out of the woodwork like, “well, this doesn’t offend ME, so I don’t see what the problem is”–is that Greenstreet has been so incredibly resistant to reflect on whether maybe he made a mistake in judgment–that actually, the video & blog are sexist trash that he should consider taking down. I can’t tell whether he is of the mind that “any publicity is good publicity, even if I’m getting publicity by demeaning others,” or whether he just thinks that it’s ok to demean people as long as there are some folks out there who don’t mind.Either way, I, for one, am going to keep going to OWS. I wish I could say that I’d kick this dude in the pants if I see him, but unfortunately, that would cost me my law license. So instead I’ll use the “people’s mic” to ask him to leave. Why? Because the great thing about OWS is that it is a space where EVERYONE is treated as an equal, down to the old homeless person who even the most awesome feminist here wouldn’t usually sit down and have a conversation with. Greenstreet’s video completely contravenes that spirit–it reminds us that actually, we aren’t all equal, even in a supposedly utopian space.I’m not going to let Greenstreet take that space away from me, anymore than I’ll let douchebag lawyers elbow me out of my profession or catcallers keep me from wearing whatever the fuck I want to wear. I would love to have some backups, though–so if you’re interested in OWS, please join–we obviously need more feminists there.BTW: also awesome–this skeezball has made videos for all sorts of reputable orgs, including HRC (because the gay rights struggle has *NOTHING* to do with sexism). I shudder to think that a donation I made at some point went to putting this creep behind a camera!

    This.

    And yeah, I’ve been saying this Greenstreet shit is fucked up since the start.

  351. TypicalUneducatedMale
    TypicalUneducatedMale October 20, 2011 at 10:59 am |

    Kierra: This post was a follow-up to a previous one where Jill did discuss what was so misogynistic:
    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/10/14/hot-chicks-of-occupy-wall-street/

    thnx for that, I missed the follow up

    where he’s reducing women to just “pretty faces”Not to mention the fact that, aside from the video, none of the pictures give any more context than just the woman’s looks.He isn’t including their thoughts or stories, just pictures of how “hot” they are.

    again, my question is if “their thoughts or stories” are not the subject of the blog, why is it objectifying not to mention them?

    If somebody took a picture of me as part of a “ugly guys who use the internet” blog, I wouldn’t assume they thing I’m stupid just because they are choosing to talk about my unattractiveness and not my “thoughts or stories”. That part of me simply isn’t the subject at hand. There seems to be nothing “reducing half the population to being either eye-candy for the more “important” half of the population or erasing them because they don’t measure up on that one oh-so-important trait”. Having something not be the subject of conversation doesn’t make it offensively diminished does it?

  352. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 11:01 am |

    Maria:
    I’m a rape victim and I thought that was kind of funny.Not hysterical, but just like, “Heh heh.”

    You can always look at something in a negative way, or you can take a lighter look at things.If anything, that’s what my attack taught me.It was a joking observation and I’m sure he meant nothing by it :)

    going out on a limb here: this one’s a fake
    “Dude, I was raped and I learned a valuable life lesson like an Oprah Ah-ha moment. During my attack, it suddenly became clear that I should enjoy life to its fullest and be positive! :)”
    WHAT A CROCK OF SHIZ.

  353. DoublyLinkedLists
    DoublyLinkedLists October 20, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    Fat Steve, people are calling you on your harmful language and all you can respond with was “Well i was angry”, “Can’t you take a joke?”, or “So I’m not perfect, sue me!” which are all mitigating responses that do not address the criticisms being raised. These are not acceptable reasons for using harmful gender stereotypes to try and hurt another person, and in fact that’s kind of what this whole thread is about. Maybe you should take a step back, take a deep breath, reread your posts and the responses people wrote to them, and rethink.

  354. Drew
    Drew October 20, 2011 at 11:09 am |

    Look, not to derail y’all here, because the dude is clearly a creeper and an asshole.

    But when you say things like “trolls! dance for me!” then you are, in fact, just trolling. And when the vast majority of posters and moderators seem to be more or less okay with “haha what a cute little troll, I wanna pinch your cheeks” kinds of comments coming from people they ideologically agree with, you begin to have a problem with an echo chamber.

  355. Li
    Li October 20, 2011 at 11:11 am |

    Janet: His metric saying homosexual men are 5 times more likely to commit suicide was vacuous in this context. Men are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then women. Yet no one minds comparisons between misogynistic terms and homophobic terms.

    Your argument here is vacuous, because the 6 times higher comparison (which is an estimate btw) is measured within the category of men ie. between queer men and heterosexual men. Whoops? And, like, I don’t really feel like going in depth on this, but while it’s true that men have a higher cause-of-death percentage of suicide than women (though it’s difficult to parse how many of those ‘men’ are trans or gender diverse, and 5 times is totally not supported by any stats I’ve ever seen), women have a much higher rate of suicidal behaviour as a whole, up to three times higher that of men. Women tend to choose less lethal means, which skews the death statistics.

    Sorry, I forgot I was meant to be all personally hurt for a minute there while I demolished your misrepresentation of suicidality statistics.

  356. Norma
    Norma October 20, 2011 at 11:16 am |

    Frankly I’m finding Janet’s trolling a little creepy at this point.

  357. johnny wreck
    johnny wreck October 20, 2011 at 11:17 am |

    listen up, fucker–

    rape without an erection is still not funny. my rapist had whiskey dick and made me get him hard before raping me. fuck you and fuck anyone for ever saying ANYTHING ABOUT RAPE IN A HUMOROUS LIGHT.

  358. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 11:19 am |

    DoublyLinkedLists:
    Fat Steve, people are calling you on your harmful language and all you can respond with was “Well i was angry”, “Can’t you take a joke?”, or “So I’m not perfect, sue me!” which are all mitigating responses that do not address the criticisms being raised. These are not acceptable reasons for using harmful gender stereotypes to try and hurt another person, and in fact that’s kind of what this whole thread is about. Maybe you should take a step back, take a deep breath, reread your posts and the responses people wrote to them, and rethink.

    @361
    @365

  359. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 11:20 am |

    b:
    You’re no better than they are, publishing his personal facebook page WITHOUT even removing his name.

    Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?

    No. See, it doesn’t matter how a woman dresses or whether she has the hottie mystique. Women are objects to people like you regardless. Hold on lemme put on my burka to appease you, man. Go back to North Somalia or Saudi Arabia, Ayatollah, to practice family cleansing and genital mutilations or whatever it is you do…
    This whole post is blowing my mind! DON’T THESE DUDEBROS HAVE MOTHERS SISTERS DAUGHTERS AUNTIES GRANDMAS??? It someone video taped my daughter with no consent you better believe they would have hell to pay.

  360. Paul Dowling
    Paul Dowling October 20, 2011 at 11:21 am |

    I am not saying that he is a latent homosexual, just uncomfortable with his own sexuality. This video says more about Greenstreet’s sexuality than Wallstreet.

    Li: Given the widespread nature of misogyny and the objectification of women, there must be a whoooooole bunch of latent queers out there if that’s your explanation. Like, in the billion plus range.

  361. Iany
    Iany October 20, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    Janet:
    What’s truly sad is we only marginalize ourselves when we act this way.

    I’m prettty sure you’re also marginalizing gays by ignoring our feelings with your ill-thought simile…

    But it’s not like our feelings matter. Only the feelings of creepy guys matter, clearly. They’re more important to the world than we are.

    :/

  362. zuzu
    zuzu October 20, 2011 at 11:34 am |

    Fat Steve: Zuzu,

    I’ve worked in UK radio for over 10 years and spend half my time over there every year, so please don’t sum up my experiences in a way that you have no idea about.

    Look, if I respond to being insulted with comments that aren’t completely thought through, I’m sorry if you feel that means I’m not entitled to interpret an interview as sexist. Instead of constantly throwing that in my face, just send my Chistmas card to Alexander Sarsgard this year.

    This is the third time you’ve brought up my comments about Swedish sexism (which, by the way, were based on rape statistics, not Sarsgard’s comments,) if you had such a problem with them, I wish you would have made a counter argument in that thread.

    I’m bringing them up because you are incredibly inconsistent in your stances on what is sexist and what is not. You hyperventilated over some innocuous comments from Sarsgard which you clearly didn’t parse correctly, and you’re now defending your own comments about using “cunt” as an insult, insulting a man’s dick size and insulting someone’s sexual experience because… Howard Stern? And then chiding someone that “chick” is sexist.

    I mean, really? You don’t see a problem with any of that? You don’t see a problem with mansplaining sexism to women and then making sexist jokes and defending them because “it’s a joke”?

    And, frankly, I don’t care if you’ve worked in UK radio for 10 years. You’ve been told by several people here that they find the application of “cunt” as an insult to be demeaning to women. You’ve also been told that you’re being demeaning to men and to the sexually inexperienced. You can either take the fucking hint and back the fuck off, or you can keep digging in. Your choice.

    But you’re not really creating a whole lot of daylight between yourself and Greenstreet.

  363. Norma
    Norma October 20, 2011 at 11:45 am |

    johnny wreck: johnny wreck

    Agreed.

    Some men commit sexual assault with their hands. Or mouths. Or objects. It’s still sexual assault it’s not fucking funny.

  364. The Woman
    The Woman October 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    M:
    Yea, this is just soooo horrible, but women on The View can cackle and laugh about a lady cutting of a dude’s penis because he wanted a divorce… but its ok because ‘it’s different’. This guy says something slightly offensive and you jump all over it. This is such a joke.

    Oh sure ALL WOMEN are represented by the ladies on The View.
    Hey, look this up: FGM
    Women have their clitorises hacked off at an alarming rate like 99.9% of Somali women for example. Little girls are held down and their genitals mutilated on a regular basis. So one dude gets castrated and it is headline news. (As horrific as this violent act is for anyone) when it happens to THOUSANDS OF WOMEN ALL THE TIME, you have probably never heard of it. SO Cry me a river. Gimme a break.

  365. Janee
    Janee October 20, 2011 at 11:49 am |

    b:
    Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?

    It doesn’t actually work like that. I’m often wearing a long-sleeve shirt and sweatpants when I get cat-calls, disrespectful ones. You might as well say, “don’t want to be objectified, don’t exist” because that’s the only way it will ever stop. It’s hard to understand how someone else’ actions are her responsibility. She shouldn’t make her own choices and enjoy herself because others will take it the wrong way or in a way she didn’t intend? No, because that’s their fault, not hers.

  366. Alison
    Alison October 20, 2011 at 11:53 am |

    PrettyAmiable: omfg, didn’t you say in another thread you live in nyc? Let’s make this happen please.

    Haha, sorry, must have been another Alison – I live in CA. :)

  367. Suzanne
    Suzanne October 20, 2011 at 11:54 am |

    I was going to try to respond to some of these troll comments, but then my brain, it exploded. Especially with Janet. Are there any words in her arguments that aren’t twenty five syllables or more? I mean, I love verisimilitude and paradoxes and marginalization as much as the next person… but it took me a good ten minutes to figure out what the hell she was saying.
    Perhaps I am an idiot, but methinks the lady doth pontificate too much.

  368. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

    Janet:
    I don’t support Steve’s actions, but I agree it’s a shame you are perpetuating negative stereotypes of feminism.This blog post is done in poor taste, and alienating.You’re not doing our community any favors.

    Another fake!! Don’t you mean– WE’re not doing OUR community any favors??? HMMMMM????
    Okay– Janet *wink wink* I don’t want to alienate you any longer! Do tell! Whatever in Goodness’ name do you mean? Lemme guess, you were attacked and had an Oprah Ah-ha moment like Maria? Please be more realistic fake dudes posing as da ladeez.

  369. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    EG: I completely agree.Now go explain that to Greenstreet and his ilk, so that they stop being such sexist assholes and get on with making common cause with the women at OWS against the exploitative, punitive economic system that drives the US.

    I completely agree that EXPLOITATION IS WRONG.
    btw suck my dick philthy c^nts.

  370. Emily WK
    Emily WK October 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

    It’s always depressing to be reminded how often liberal dudes don’t think of women as being people.

  371. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

    jibbles: Ok… well, I wouldn’t want that. Just remember… you’re what’s wrong with ‘feminism.’ A movement can’t succeed if it’s led by ill-informed controversy-mongers like yourself. Enjoy all the free meals… something tells me you will.

    Ooooh I get it. Not as not funny as rape jokes, but fat jokes hardly ever are…
    Um, yeah so once again: feminist opinion = you’re opinion doesn’t count = you must be fat = ugly
    because exploitation is bad! Thanks for the lols trolls!

  372. Kierra
    Kierra October 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

    again, my question is if “their thoughts or stories” are not the subject of the blog, why is it objectifying not to mention them?

    Because that’s pretty much the definition of objectifying. Reducing someone to just their appearance and then using that trait to determine their worth. The entire point of the project is objectifying women, as evidenced by the fact that he doesn’t care about what they have to say and only includes women that meet his “hotness” criteria.

    If somebody took a picture of me as part of a “ugly guys who use the internet” blog, I wouldn’t assume they thing I’m stupid just because they are choosing to talk about my unattractiveness and not my “thoughts or stories”.

    Congratulations on not being a member of the sex class. But women are constantly judged on their appearance in a way that influences whether or not they are taken seriously in what they say. Besides that, would it make you feel differently if your picture was used for that without your knowledge or permission? What if you were asked questions about your views but those were discarded and only your photo was used?

    There seems to be nothing “reducing half the population to being either eye-candy for the more “important” half of the population or erasing them because they don’t measure up on that one oh-so-important trait”.

    Based on what exactly? You can’t just assert this without any evidence. Hot girls were photographed, non-hot girls were not (thus their presence at the protest was erased), those girls that were photographed were showcased without any additional context (thus what other purpose are these photos providing other than eye candy?).

    Having something not be the subject of conversation doesn’t make it offensively diminished does it?

    It does when this particular something (the thoughts and views of women) happens to be the thing that’s not talked about in favor of a certain other something (women’s attractiveness) all the $%^ing time!

  373. Ceres
    Ceres October 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

    I never get who some of the concern-trolls think they are fooling when they write from the supposed position of someone interested in feminism, but having been turned off by all your crazy antics. Anyone who takes gender and gender equality seriously won’t be turned off by one incident of a crazy feminist, much less if the craziness is all in his mind. The more likely conclusion is that he’s just trying to be divisive.

  374. chuck
    chuck October 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

    huh? there are jerk faces in every %

    PrettyAmiable:
    Andddd feel validated in my reasons described elsewhere for wanting nothing to do with the 99%. Would much rather be my 1/300,000,000, thanks. No jerkfaces in my %.

  375. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

    What exactly confused you, chuck?

  376. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

    zuzu: I’m bringing them up because you are incredibly inconsistent in your stances on what is sexist and what is not.You hyperventilated over some innocuous comments from Sarsgard which you clearly didn’t parse correctly, and you’re now defending your own comments about using “cunt” as an insult, insulting a man’s dick size and insulting someone’s sexual experience because… Howard Stern?And then chiding someone that “chick” is sexist.

    I mean, really?You don’t see a problem with any of that?You don’t see a problem with mansplaining sexism to women and then making sexist jokes and defending them because “it’s a joke”?

    And, frankly, I don’t care if you’ve worked in UK radio for 10 years.You’ve been told by several people here that they find the application of “cunt” as an insult to be demeaning to women.You’ve also been told that you’re being demeaning to men and to the sexually inexperienced.You can either take the fucking hint and back the fuck off, or you can keep digging in.Your choice.

    But you’re not really creating a whole lot of daylight between yourself and Greenstreet.

    The only ‘joke’ I referred to was the fact that I was influenced by Howard Stern. Everything else I will shut up. about, ok?

  377. Katya
    Katya October 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

    In case there was any doubt that SG is a douche, this from August Pollak (linked to on Pandagon):

    “So, my fun little Inside Baseball story: when Campus Progress (the nonprofit I used to work for in DC) first launched in 2004, one of the first things we did was try to promote a campus tour of a small documentary film made by Steven Greenstreet. We sent him to college campuses across the country to do a Q&A with students and put him up in hotels and expensed him. The relationship went sour when we started getting expense invoices back from him with hotel bills that included charges for pornographic movies. Then he called one of my female co-workers a “F___ C___” during a phone call. And that’s the last time anyone at a major progressive organization ever worked with Steven Greenstreet again.”

    But I’m sure it was just a joke.

  378. Caity
    Caity October 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

    It’s like he can’t wrap his mind around the concept that women minding their own business aren’t responsible for the actions of any guys present. That is the only reason I can think of where he thinks you calling him out on his creepitude means that you’re against other women wearing anything they damn well please, and therefore are a hypocrite for looking awesome at a fashion show.

    Obviously, it’s impossible to really blame a guy for creepiness when the womenfolk are going around being all sexy and whatnot and forcing innocent men to behave like total asses. Therefore, by criticizing this dud’s behaviour, you are actually criticizing the women he is creeping on. Or at least you are in whatever parallel universe he’s from.

  379. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos October 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

    So, let me get this straight – fauxgressive dudes, in order to prove that they are not misogynists and that Steve’s non-consentual filming is not sexist, come to a feminist blog to mansplain, use misogynistic slurs, threat or make light of rape, and employ every useless fucking strawman in the troll tool box. And this, apparently, is supposed to convince me that there ISN’T some unhinged misogyny at work in them and in steviekins.

    LOL. Congratulations on being 100% ineffectual, incompetent and worthless Steve and his fans!

    And Drew, diddums. Learn what the words “troll” and “echo chamber” mean BEFORE using them. You’re just embarassing yourself.

  380. Amberbug
    Amberbug October 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
  381. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos October 20, 2011 at 1:20 pm |

    <blockquote.Bet she was just too serious or sensitive, right?

    Well, that and THAT’S WHAT SHE GETS FOR GOING OUT IN PUBLIC. BITCH WAS ASKING FOR IT, BEING IN PUBLIC LIKE THAT!

  382. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos October 20, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    I never get who some of the concern-trolls think they are fooling when they write from the supposed position of someone interested in feminism, but having been turned off by all your crazy antics.

    I never get why someone of them proclaim this isn’t sexist because . . . . . uh . . . . um . . . . . . . . . . . just cuz. Or proclaiming its not sexist because they say so.

    Why do they want people to know they’re uneducated, clueless and not smart enough to avoid conclusively prove this to the entire internet?

  383. Amberbug
    Amberbug October 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/dudebro-occupation/
    “Though we do not encourage the involvement of police in our community….”

  384. Viliphied
    Viliphied October 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

    “Ugh, my boyfriend cried when he saw Up. What a creep.” – no one, ever.

    Janet, words mean things. Creep does not mean what you seem to think it means.

  385. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

    Pidgey:
    Paraphrasing Chris’ link: “Women don’t earn less than men because of sexism. Women earn less than men because society happens to value women’s knowledge, skills, and experience less than we value men’s knowledge, skills, and experience. So you SEE!? Totally Not Sexist. Just a huge coincidence.”

    THAT’S RIGHT! Plus it is women’s CHOICE to go into female dominated professions and it is women’s BURDEN ALONE when they have children. {omg we need to force gender studies as part of gen ed requirements fo realz}
    But, I could hardly listen to the first minute since that guy should STFU because he was fat and totes not hot.

  386. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

    Drew:
    Look, not to derail y’all here, because the dude is clearly a creeper and an asshole.

    But when you say things like “trolls! dance for me!” then you are, in fact, just trolling. And when the vast majority of posters and moderators seem to be more or less okay with “haha what a cute little troll, I wanna pinch your cheeks” kinds of comments coming from people they ideologically agree with, you begin to have a problem with an echo chamber.

    No. I’m showing them the respect they have been showing us. Odd how folks can dish it out but cannot take it.

  387. Whoa Boiee
    Whoa Boiee October 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    Well, file this episode next to “Elevatorgate” in the drawer dedicated to shit that scampers for a dark hole when a moldy old rock is kicked over. One minute you’re thinking, “look at this progressive solidarity,” the next…dude rage.

    I’m a straight white dude. I like hot chicks. Yet somehow, and don’t ask me to describe the source of this awesome, inscrutable will power, I am able to understand how objectifying women in that context has the effect of undermining their political/intellectual contributions to the protest.

    As always, it’s a free country, meaning that when someone says, “hey, stop saying that,” so long as one’s actions are legal, they’re welcome to say in return, “fuck you.” That “fuck you,” is generally very informative, and freedom of speech does not immunize one from the consequences of their statements. In this case, the “fuck you” revealed the speaker to be a misogynist.

  388. GoodGravey
    GoodGravey October 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Ummm … Facebook isn’t private unless the user has made it so, and someone hacks the account. Everything unprotected on Facebook (or Twitter or any other SM) is public domain.

    A really simple lesson. Don’t put shit out there that you aren’t prepared to have thrown back at you for the rest of your life.

  389. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos October 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

    THe facebook faux rage was just a way to avoid talking about the actual subject, because various misogynistic cowards would of course value poor, oppressed and endangered Facebook over all women on earth.

  390. Brian
    Brian October 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

    The fail is obviously quite significant here and also well documented at this point so kudos to all who’ve taken arms against this sea of troubling misogynists.

    I would note how utterly bizarre it is to see Greenstreet’s theoretically left-wing defenders bringing up Facebook’s intellectual property assertions in the way they have. Occupy Wallstreet is really about calling upon Corporations to assert and enforce far-reaching claims of ownership over user generated content? Its a stunning display of situational ethics that the sorts of people who probably tend to over-worry about that sort of TOS clause are now actually calling for just the sort of disenfranchising power-grab by the monied elite that they would be fretting about.

  391. Copper
    Copper October 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    I hope all the mansplaining dickheads posting here are castrated while trying to “jokingly” rape someone.

  392. Doctress Julia
    Doctress Julia October 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

    Yeah, gotta love that ‘it’s not sexist because d00dz SAY SO’! Just yell in my face, “NONE OF THAT EVEN MATTERS!!” And you win! /s

    For real, I just kicked a ‘progressive’ d00d to the curb for saying this exact thing to me. And, then he was all like ‘I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS’! Yeah, apparently not! Loved the attempts to put me on the defensive to try and distract me from what YOU ARE DOING WRONG. Never had THAT one pulled on me before… /s

    It’s not like my very existence isn’t already dictated by men’s almost constant threats of violence. This comment thread only confirms what I already know.

  393. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

    Emily WK: DON’T THESE DUDEBROS HAVE MOTHERS SISTERS DAUGHTERS AUNTIES GRANDMAS??? It someone video taped my daughter with no consent you better believe they would have hell to pay.

    Renowned Internet Feminist “toonces” put it thusly on another blog:

    Men on the right think women are private property. Men on the left think women are public property.

  394. Paul K Dowling
    Paul K Dowling October 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

    Andi, after considering your comments I agree with you. Should have said 99% certainty that Greenstreet is a self-loathing homosexual or the type of (his perception of himself) “little” boy “hung-up” trying to prove his “manhood.”

    Andie: I’m on board with the first two points.. but to the third I can only assume you’re new here and don’t realize that we don’t take kindly to the conflagration of gayness and assholery.

  395. Gem
    Gem October 20, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Do you mean an invasion of privacy in the same sense that say, a man taking photos of women at a public protest without their knowledge or consent, objectifying and sexualising them as they fight for their human rights and posting their images on a website for the viewing pleasure of men all around the world is an invasion of privacy?

  396. Doctress Julia
    Doctress Julia October 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

    … and radical feminists think that women aren’t property at all.

  397. Gem
    Gem October 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

    jjuliaava: going out on a limb here: this one’s a fake
    “Dude, I was raped and I learned a valuable life lesson like an Oprah Ah-ha moment. During my attack, it suddenly became clear that I should enjoy life to its fullest and be positive! :)”
    WHAT A CROCK OF SHIZ.

    I thought this too. I think only a man could say something like this. If the comment is genuine, I apologise but I was raped too and I never look back on the crime as a ‘teaching moment’ or an opportunity to ‘look on the bright side’ and have a giggle about it.

  398. Tony
    Tony October 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    Well, file this episode next to “Elevatorgate” in the drawer dedicated to shit that scampers for a dark hole when a moldy old rock is kicked over. One minute you’re thinking, “look at this progressive solidarity,” the next…dude rage.

    I’m a straight white dude. I like hot chicks. Yet somehow, and don’t ask me to describe the source of this awesome, inscrutable will power, I am able to understand how objectifying women in that context has the effect of undermining their political/intellectual contributions to the protest.

    Thank you… I loved your analogy as well. Look around… this place is FILLED with rocks.

    “their thoughts or stories” are not the subject of the blog, why is it objectifying not to mention them?

    If somebody took a picture of me as part of a “ugly guys who use the internet” blog, I wouldn’t assume they thing I’m stupid just because they are choosing to talk about my unattractiveness and not my “thoughts or stories”. That part of me simply isn’t the subject at hand. There seems to be nothing “reducing half the population to being either eye-candy for the more “important” half of the population or erasing them because they don’t measure up on that one oh-so-important trait”. Having something not be the subject of conversation doesn’t make it offensively diminished does it?

    It is sexually objectifying for the same reason that anything else that could legitimately be called sexually objectifying is so: He is inserting a reduction to sex appeal in a context where it was not meant to be so by the persons being objectified. It’s not just that the womens’ higher functions aren’t valued in this particular blog, it’s that this denial of value was done in violation of the womens’ stated purpose of being at the protest. The proper analogy would be that you typed your comment, but instead of responding to your comment, I started talking about your looks or your penis size. You wouldn’t like that, would you?

    Now, it would be different if you advertised yourself at a porn site and I started talking about your looks and penis size. I am still respecting you in the sense that I know you consented to being valued for your body only within the context of the porn site. If I met you at Starbucks and started making sexual remarks, you would have the right to be offended whether you were a porn star or not, because at Starbucks you did not signal your consent to be so objectified. It is all about respect for the intent and will of the person involved. It is only natural that people want to be taken seriously as people by default, except in specific contexts that are specifically sexual (during the sex act itself, during flirting, dancing, at clubs, etc.) and that treating someone as a sex object outside these contexts would be hurtful. This is something that’s very instinctive to all people, as evidenced by the fact that most people do follow this etiquette, but a lot of people seem not to want to acknowledge it or actually go through the logical steps of thinking it through and just react defensively.

  399. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 20, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    Why, yes, Doctress Julia! That is indeed a “radical” notion, eh?

    (smiles bitterly)

  400. Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Patriarchal Progressives

    [...] Filipovic, at Feministe, has a great post up on objectification of women within liberal activist circles. It was prompted by the much-commented [...]

  401. Sanoe
    Sanoe October 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

    Josef:
    I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here.

    That’s sort of the problem.

    Conservatives: Women should support us and then head back to the kitchen.
    Liberals: Women should support us and then head back to the bedroom.

  402. Emily WK
    Emily WK October 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm |

    tinfoil hattie: Renowned Internet Feminist “toonces” put it thusly on another blog:

    Men on the right think women are private property. Men on the left think women are public property.

    Misquoted – I didn’t say that.

  403. Auguste
    Auguste October 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm |

    0
    Men on the right think women are private property. Men on the left think women are public property.

    Despite my historical tendency to disagree with tinfoil hattie, I think this quote is absolutely true, and, moreover, germane.

  404. Hot Chicks, Cold Sexists and #Occupy Wall Street : Ms Magazine Blog

    [...] According to Jill Filipovic of Feministe, Greenstreet responded to her criticism by Google image-searching her and tweeting pictures of her in a dress she wore for a friend’s feminist eco-friendly fashion show with commentary like, “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.” Filipovic also discovered a rape joke Greenstreet made on his Facebook wall. It’s becoming more and more clear why Greenstreet’s “contribution” to #OccupyWallStreet took the form it did. [...]

  405. Wit's End
    Wit's End October 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

    Actually, rape often happens without an erect penis. Rape happens with fingers and other appendages, especially to children, rape happens with broomsticks (remember that one?) and rape happens with guns and knives.

    NONE of them are funny, especially if you happen to be the one being raped.

    Jerk.

    And by the way, thank you to the author of this post for a very clear and compelling explanation of why exactly that film IS offensive…and depressing also, because it’s not only sexist, but agist. Are only young women who fit certain stereotypical conventions to be considered attractive?

    It reveals spectacular ignorance, insensitivity, and egomaniacal narcissism. Ugh.

  406. Florence
    Florence October 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm |

    Auguste: Despite my historical tendency to disagree with tinfoil hattie, I think this quote is absolutely true, and, moreover, germane.

    Word. And props to TH for bringing it to light.

  407. jose
    jose October 20, 2011 at 8:02 pm |

    Jeez, I’m glad this didn’t happen in my country when we did our demonstrations.

  408. Dominique
    Dominique October 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

    FYI, Maria is a troll

  409. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 20, 2011 at 8:32 pm |

    Auguste, you have a historical tendency to disagree with me? I had no idea.

    @Emily WK, how/where did I misquote you?

  410. Zofi
    Zofi October 20, 2011 at 8:42 pm |

    Jill: Abner Louima

    Seriously. Expressing the thought of rape without an erection as being amusing reveals a lot of ignorance, and to me, seems like some sort of self involved, penis glorifying perspective…to which I just want to respond…RAPE IS NOT ABOUT COCK!! To all y’all misogynists: the world is not one big vagina for you to stick your willy in, and life is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a movie about you. To all my friends who are men and know what’s up, who have compassion for women and their experience as women in this world-compassion which extends to more than just your current partners and family members, but to every woman you see…for the love and support you give, and the beauty I see in you, I GOT MUCH LOVE. Thank you. The sorrow in seeing these attitudes continue, and the heavy weight of the results so many of us and our loved ones continue to live through, is immense. Instead of being defensive, I don’t understand why people can’t try to understand what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this shit we are dealt simply for being born with different chromosomes.

  411. dangermouse
    dangermouse October 20, 2011 at 8:43 pm |

    You have to have some serious fucked-up going on to fail to comprehend why it’s okay for people to be in fashion shows but not okay for you to make scuzzy videos objectifying people at a political protest.

  412. dangermouse
    dangermouse October 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm |

    Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it.

    Like unless I missed the part where someone was criticizing this dude for dressing up in a short skirt and showing off his body to leering men I am pretty sure that is a fucked-up thing to say.

  413. Lara Emily Foley
    Lara Emily Foley October 20, 2011 at 9:52 pm |

    Paul Dowling:
    99% certainty that Anonymous and Greenstreet are the same person.

    99% certainty that Kelly is Greenstreet Girlfriend or an idiot.

    99% of certainty that Greenstreet is gay or has issues regarding penis size and misogyny.

    99% of certainty that that last comment is fucking bullshit and didn’t need to be said. This guy is a an ass no doubt but using gay as an insult and making penis size insults are bullshit

  414. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 20, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

    “Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?”

    I was 12 and taking a shower/changing in my own room when I was objectified/had my privacy violated. What exactly was I supposed to have done differently, asshole? Worn clothes while showering?

  415. EG
    EG October 20, 2011 at 10:56 pm |

    jennygadget:

    What exactly was I supposed to have done differently, asshole?

    Not be a girl, obviously.

  416. Creepy sexist of the day : Lawyers, Guns & Money

    [...] Steven Greenstreet. Share and Enjoy: [...]

  417. Atticus Dogsbody
    Atticus Dogsbody October 20, 2011 at 11:14 pm |

    but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny.

    How hard do you think you’d laugh if a couple of big, scary dudes decided to give your rear end a workout with a broom handle?

  418. Clarisse Thorn
    Clarisse Thorn October 20, 2011 at 11:43 pm | *

    For the record, and because I think this Janet person might have been influenced by my now-infamous creep article:

    NON-CONSENSUAL ACTS ARE NOT OKAY.

    DEFENDING GUYS WHO ARE PERPETRATING NON-CONSENSUAL ACTS IS NOT A FEMINIST ACT.

    THE POINT OF MY ARTICLE WAS NOT TO GIVE PEOPLE ENDLESS FODDER TO DEFEND ASSHOLES WHO PERPETRATE NON-CONSENSUAL ACTS.

    Jesus. And people wonder why I’m pissed off and bitter about having written that article. I really didn’t understand how far some people would co-opt my words.

  419. Auguste
    Auguste October 20, 2011 at 11:48 pm |

    tinfoil hattie:
    Auguste, you have a historical tendency to disagree with me? I had no idea.

    Well, as I often realize to my chagrin – in a lot of ways I’m locked, in blogging terms and outlook, about two years ago? Or whenever the last time I blogged regularly was. So when I say historical, I mean *historical*.

  420. failure
    failure October 20, 2011 at 11:48 pm |

    It does when this particular something (the thoughts and views of women) happens to be the thing that’s not talked about in favor of a certain other something (women’s attractiveness) all the $%^ing time!

    This seems like punishing 1 person for the mistakes of an entire group. If I understand your position correctly, it is effectively sexually objectifying to choose to make a photo blog about women one finds attractive because “there is enough of that content out there and the women of the OWS movement are there to proclaim an ideology. By not choosing another topic, you contribute to the objectification”.

    While I disagree with this position on what makes something appropriate vs not appropriate to choose as the subject matter for artistic expression, I thank you for taking the time to explain it too me in lue of all the flaming afoot.

  421. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 20, 2011 at 11:51 pm |

    “Not be a girl, obviously.”

    Well, yes. obviously. :p

  422. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 21, 2011 at 12:03 am |

    ClarisseThorn: Maybe you could have taken the time to admit that there are in fact some situations where creepy people can and should be called out for being creepy. Because the takeaway I got from the article was: people need to stop using creepy to describe men all the time, it’s overused, and just because a guy’s far closer than some people like, that doesn’t mean he’s creepy, just awkward. I’ll continue this in a more appropriate area.

    In other news, I’m still avoiding the Wall Street protests. I’m happy to watch white men my age shooting across the internet, like the ridiculous meteors they are, but to me, it becomes less and less important to talk to real life men. Why bother? If a woman isn’t pretty, they won’t see her. If a woman is pretty, they won’t hear her.

  423. EG
    EG October 21, 2011 at 12:07 am |

    blockquote>This seems like punishing 1 person for the mistakes of an entire group.

    Person 1 is a member of that group. He is making the same “mistake” that his group has been making hundreds of years. This is not some kind of unfortunate coincidence. This is how objectification works.

    And it’s not a “mistake.” The idea that women should not be publicly reduced to jerk-off fodder every time we set foot outside our homes is not some new-fangled notion that a self-proclaimed progressive young fellow couldn’t possibly be expected to know about. This was a deliberate decision to be a douche, and then a bunch of whiny misogyny when lefty women don’t just shut up and put their anger about it aside to help “the cause.”

    This kind of bullshit from our allegedly lefty “allies” is exactly why the earliest second-wave feminists came out of the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left.

  424. EG
    EG October 21, 2011 at 12:08 am |

    Ugh. Total tag fuck-up. Let me try again:

    This seems like punishing 1 person for the mistakes of an entire group.

    Person 1 is a member of that group. He is making the same “mistake” that his group has been making hundreds of years. This is not some kind of unfortunate coincidence. This is how objectification works.

    And it’s not a “mistake.” The idea that women should not be publicly reduced to jerk-off fodder every time we set foot outside our homes is not some new-fangled notion that a self-proclaimed progressive young fellow couldn’t possibly be expected to know about. This was a deliberate decision to be a douche, and then a bunch of whiny misogyny when lefty women don’t just shut up and put their anger about it aside to help “the cause.”

    This kind of bullshit from our allegedly lefty “allies” is exactly why the earliest second-wave feminists came out of the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left.

  425. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 21, 2011 at 12:10 am |

    “This seems like punishing 1 person for the mistakes of an entire group.”

    O.o

    srsly?

    When will these concern trolls realize that the issue is not about some obscure point of feminist theory but risk assessment.

    History does not matter to us because we all have special super secret feminist scorecards where we decide who is right or wrong based on how many times “their side” has been a victim or not. History matters because there is a shitload of crappy stuff that comes with objectifying women. And you can’t separate it, bc the objectification is routinely used as justification.

    That women are objects for sexual pleasure is the least of what the patriarchy perpetuates most days. And people who actively support objectifying women – even after it is pointed out – do not strike most feminists as safe people to be around. bc even if they aren’t perps themselves they sure have already made it clear they won’t value your judgement/word on what is true/harmful to you.

    …who the hell am I kidding? Mr. At Least You Weren’t Harpies This Time is deliberately Not Listening anyway.

  426. EG
    EG October 21, 2011 at 12:29 am |

    Well, come on, jennygadget. What’s the old saying? Better that 100 women should be objectified and feel lousy about in silence than that one straight, white, self-proclaimed “progressive” dudebro be unfairly punished for his “mistake”?

    Something like that, anyway.

  427. Chelsea
    Chelsea October 21, 2011 at 1:44 am |

    Ugh, I cannot. What a scumbag. It’s seriously depressing to me to learn that so many liberal guys may be wonderful idealists on the one hand, but serious sexists on the other. This is why I’ll die a withered old spinster.

  428. Clarisse Thorn
    Clarisse Thorn October 21, 2011 at 3:11 am | *

    Politicalguineapig:
    ClarisseThorn: Maybe you could have taken the time to admit that there are in fact some situations where creepy people can and should be called out for being creepy.

    I THOUGHT I DID. I explicitly said things like “Certain situations and certain people deserve our disdain.” Although I went up against the word, which I probably shouldn’t have done.

  429. Virginia
    Virginia October 21, 2011 at 5:10 am |

    Maria: Oh goddness me, there is no such thing as a superior sense of humor :)Everyone finds different things funny.I’m sorry you hurt so bad and that you have a lot of anger still, but it gets better.I’m a very optimistic person and unfortunately it gets me in trouble sometimes.I found that the best way to deal with all the anger and hate I felt was to accept that it happened and move on.

    If such things trigger flashbacks for you then maybe it would be a good idea not to read articles like this :(Everything I read seems like it’s bent to instill anger, and while it’s something plenty of people have the right to be mad about, if it’s going to upset you you should probably avoid that.

    I don’t think advising rape survivors to abstain from discussing rape culture (implying it’s their reaction to rape jokes that’s problematic) is appropriate here.

    Research into sexist jokes has amply shown that men making “jokes” about deeply misogynist acts, like rape, find them less deeply troubling, and that the jokes themselves reinforce in sexist men hearing them the idea that rape is less serious.

    So while individual rape survivors *may* find rape jokes amusing (although I’m guessing they’re in a small minority), that in no way lessens the seriousness of rape jokes.

    Anyway, if we remember what began this thread – some guy said joking about how the lack of an erection made rape difficult was funny.

    Which is ridiculous, because rape does not always involve penile penetration. Rape involves the desire to inflict hurt on a victim, and joking about how it’s purely about libido just makes this worse.

  430. Jon
    Jon October 21, 2011 at 5:55 am |

    Jesus Tap-Dancing CHRIST am I sick of this attitude from my fellow dudes. What is with this weird sense of entitlement? To reduce women to objects, to view their very existence in terms of the presence or absence of a dick twitch, and then to come here and shout down/insult women for daring to complain. Who do you think you are exactly?

    I grew up in a very sexist household with traditional values, but even then there was an undercurrent of respect (‘treat her like a lady’ and all that). That’s not nearly enough, but you guys don’t even have that basic level of decency I got drilled into me decades ago! What the hell happened to you?

    Ladies, I’m not the best when it comes to these issues. Like I said earlier I’m the product of a pretty messed-up upbringing and I’m still unpacking the baggage. But I can tell you that there are good men out there. Men who see you as people, who value you as human beings first and foremost. But they’ve been bullied into submission by the same loudmouthed assholes who are now shitting up this thread. Years of being beaten up and called a faggot have made them all clam up, and now they instinctively keep quiet out of a subconscious fear of reprisal. I know this because I used to be one of the loudmouthed assholes, policing my fellow boys (and later men) to ensure that no one dared to show sensitivity, emotion, or empathy. I’m finally wising up, but this isn’t about me: it’s about those guys. I have no idea how to connect with them or how to help them, but I’m convinced that they would make great allies. Some of them have wandered over here of their own accord, but that’s not enough; we need to get them all on board. We need to have them all lined up so that whenever the assholes come whooping and hollering from the forest we can say “You? You are only boys. The ones with us? These are the men.” We need a new masculinity, one based on maturity and intelligence, not dick-waving and rape. It’s the only way we’re going to get through this okay.

  431. Scott
    Scott October 21, 2011 at 6:57 am |

    Kelly:
    Why are you posting from a private Facebook user’s personal wall? He’s not a public figure or a brand. Seems like a total invasion of privacy. This is totally offensive.

    Completely disagree, and I’m actually amazed a woman is defending this sleazy jerk-off… If someone make “jokes” about rape in a public forum like Facebook, then fuck ‘em, they deserve everything they get…

    This clown has gone out of his way to trivialise the Occupy Wall Street Protests and try and turn it into a fucking “Speed Date” event… He’s an idiot, he should just piss off because he’s doing the cause nothing but damage and giving the mainstream media ammunition to discredit the entire movement…. I have nothing but contempt for people like him…

    We’ve all met people on demos and hooked up in bars or pubs later on and natural attractions have developed, but NEVER forget the main reason for being there. It’s not a Single’s Bar, it’s a demo FFS…..

  432. Kierra
    Kierra October 21, 2011 at 6:58 am |

    This seems like punishing 1 person for the mistakes of an entire group…

    I may not have explained it very well, but read Tony’s response at 424. I think he did a much better job of isolating the troubling aspect of the project.

    Tony:
    It is sexually objectifying for the same reason that anything else that could legitimately be called sexually objectifying is so: He is inserting a reduction to sex appeal in a context where it was not meant to be so by the persons being objectified. It’s not just that the womens’ higher functions aren’t valued in this particular blog, it’s that this denial of value was done in violation of the womens’ stated purpose of being at the protest. The proper analogy would be that you typed your comment, but instead of responding to your comment, I started talking about your looks or your penis size. You wouldn’t like that, would you?

  433. Steven Greenstreet Isn’t Sexist; He Just Loves Hot Chicks. | Women, Action & the Media

    [...] Filipovic has turned Greenstreet’s recent rape joke into a powerful criticism of his film and his contradicting stance on women’s rights. While there is opportunity for [...]

  434. Mike Nilsen
    Mike Nilsen October 21, 2011 at 7:03 am |

    I’m not getting this Facebook privacy debate. The captured image of this guy’s “wall” is public on the Internet, no?

    Unless Jill has some level of exclusive access to his Facebook content, she’s just reproducing something that’s publicly available. There’s no violation of privacy because it’s public content. If Greenstreet wants to keep something private, he has to explicitly restrict access.

    There’s no copyright violation case either, because this usage is certainly fair use.

  435. Andie
    Andie October 21, 2011 at 8:05 am |

    Yeah.. I think the copyright infringement would only come in if, in some bizarre twist of fail, Jill used the ..koff… “joke” in some kind of comedy act and claimed it as her own in hopes to profit off of it.

    I think, anyway. I’m no lawyer, so don’t quote me on that.

  436. rain
    rain October 21, 2011 at 9:56 am |

    Jon @453

    I grew up in a very sexist household with traditional values, but even then there was an undercurrent of respect (‘treat her like a lady’ and all that). That’s not nearly enough, but you guys don’t even have that basic level of decency I got drilled into me decades ago! What the hell happened to you?

    Actually, no, benevolent sexism is not “that basic level of decency”:

    Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women . . . Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude toward women . . .
    Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are mutually supportive ideologies. In a [study], responses . . . showed that countries high in hostile sexism were invariably high in benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are also significantly correlated at the individual level (meaning that a high score on one scale tends to be associated with a high score on the other), though this correlation is not large.

    Benevolent sexism, like hostile sexism, is an ideology that supports gender inequality, and in some ways benevolent sexism can be even more insidious.

    Benevolent justifications for discrimination (e.g., “Women should forego a career because they excel at childcare”) are more likely to be accepted than hostile justifications (e.g., “Women should forego a career because they lack ability”). Whereas women are more likely than men to reject hostile sexism, they often endorse benevolent sexism — especially in countries high in hostile sexism, where male protection is most appealing.
    There’s a reason that, whenever chivalry comes up, it’s sexists who rush to defend it.
    Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance:

    One practical implication of ambivalent sexism is the negative impact that benevolent sexist attitudes have on women’s cognitive ability. Women who experienced benevolent sexism performed worse on a cognitive ability task than women who experienced hostile sexism. The psychological mechanism that the authors use to explain this difference is that hostile sexist behavior is clearly identifiable and therefore easily dismissible. Benevolent sexist comments are more ambiguous leading to a greater use of cognitive resources that are spent thinking about the behavior.

  437. rain
    rain October 21, 2011 at 9:59 am |

    The paragraph starting “Benevolent justifications” and ending “most appealing” is also a quote.

  438. JohnEWilliams
    JohnEWilliams October 21, 2011 at 10:10 am |

    Much of the comments from guys in this thread bring to mind a quote from the great Andy ‘The Nard Dog’ Bernard’:

    “Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think if he was sexist, I’d be able to tell. I took a CRAPLOAD of Women’s Studies courses at Cornell. And I wrote my own companion piece to The Vagina Monologues called The Penis Apologies. So I know a thing or two.”

  439. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 21, 2011 at 10:12 am |

    tinfoil hattie: Renowned Internet Feminist “toonces” put it thusly on another blog:

    Men on the right think women are private property. Men on the left think women are public property.

    Quoted for truth.

  440. Napalmnacey
    Napalmnacey October 21, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

    As someone who was raped without a penis involved, go f*ck yourself. It is not funny. AT ALL.

  441. rain
    rain October 21, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

    Clarisse Thorn @ 451:
    I think the problem is which interactions you didn’t see as deserving of “creepy”, and that put you in the same camp as anti-feminists like these guys, who privilege men’s right to approach women over women’s right to go about their day unmolested.
    The Politics of Hello” is a really good discussion on this because it eliminates the overtly hostile and rude approaches, and deals mostly with the seemingly polite and innocuous approaches that the Feminist Critics types argue are A-OK. My all-time favourite response to that idea is sophonisba @ 60.

  442. failure
    failure October 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

    It is sexually objectifying for the same reason that anything else that could legitimately be called sexually objectifying is so: He is inserting a reduction to sex appeal in a context where it was not meant to be so by the persons being objectified. It’s not just that the womens’ higher functions aren’t valued in this particular blog, it’s that this denial of value was done in violation of the womens’ stated purpose of being at the protest. The proper analogy would be that you typed your comment, but instead of responding to your comment, I started talking about your looks or your penis size. You wouldn’t like that, would you?

    For the record, no, it wouldn’t bother me. As long as you made no effort to belittle what I was saying, choosing to quote me on your own blog and talk about the size of my dick I would consider to be within your own realm of artistic expression, and not feel that by using me as the subject for a different topic made my topic any less relevant, just different.

    But ALSO for the record, I am very aware that women have a history of having their messages reduced to ONLY “other topics” and as such I probably have such a viewpoint because I don’t have to battle as hard as women typically do to get people to be herd, if not agreed with.

    I would say for me, responding on my blog and changing the topic would objectifying, posting on your own blog about penises and using me as a subject tho i have no problem with.

    Again thank you for taking the time to explain your position to me in lue of all the trolls.

  443. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

    Chelsea:
    Ugh, I cannot.What a scumbag.It’s seriously depressing to me to learn that so many liberal guys may be wonderful idealists on the one hand, but serious sexists on the other.This is why I’ll die a withered old spinster.

    Well, I guess this is one can speak about because after having my inconsistencies pointed out by Zuzu, I’ve been thinking about this subject a lot. I am always shocked when people refer to me as ‘politically correct’ because I never really bothered with political correctness, but figured people didn’t care because I’m not particularly racist, homophobic or woman hating. But words do matter and the problem is people being unwilling to change with the time or context, and the people who call me ‘politically correct’ merely mean liberal, so I’ve not noticed how my words can be offensive and once I was done nit-picking zuzu’s factual errors about me and what I said, I realize she was 100% right in her overall point. I just assumed that my good intentions were obvious, but clearly they weren’t, and it is my fault if people don’t get what I’m saying- not theirs, so explaining, I’d say mansplaining, but zuzu had the same reaction to Sady’s protestations, in both cases just made it worse.

    So, she was right to compare my defensiveness with Steven Greenstreet in that I wouldn’t just shut up, listen to criticism and take it on board, because I was being a big baby who couldn’t get over the feeling of being personally attacked. Until we get over the ego hurt and accept that we may be wrong about something, this idiocy will always continue. So, while zuzu’s comments may have stung at first, as someone who wants to become a better person I can only appreciate her ‘calling me out’ in a forum where I’ve always been treated with respect.

  444. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

    EG

    I think the argument these days tends to go that we should just “man-up.” That acknowledging our rational risk assessment is the same as coddling irrational fears. And therefore taking into account our reality based fears would be a sexist because that would require them to treat us like children.* Or something.

    Also, shit happens! and we are expecting special treatment/irrationally expecting reality to change by virtue of wanting people to address the people that are throwing poo around. Or something.

    The fact that we are discussing not so much that rapists exist but that culture – by embracing objectification, harassment, and the like – makes rapists bolder and more plentiful? That goes *whoosh* right over their heads.

    *One of my complaints about the Occupy Boston statement, for example, is that it very much is addressing neither harassers nor harassees specifically, yet neither is it asking people to police those around them.

    All the stuff about what you shouldn’t do (to not harass) is short and vague and circular. Even worse, all the stuff about what to do if you are harassed is phrased exactly that way. No “here are some people that will help you if you are being hurt/harassed. know that we trust your judgement and will support whoever you turn to for help.” No – instead it’s more another list of dos and don’ts and the FIRST mention of getting help is all about who you shouldn’t ask for help from. Cuz that’s helpful. And totally makes one feel confident that person you list as an alternative is totally going to make helping you a priority.**

    On top of all that, there is nothing in it that is about observers reporting incidents or documenting incidents or how to step in safely when people need help or anything of that nature. The onus is very much on the harassee to report. Period.

    **Especially when the statement goes on to talk about false accusations. Although, to Occupy Baltimore’s credit, they took that out prior to ratification.

  445. Matt
    Matt October 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

    The thing is that each kind of radicalism is a distinct entity. In general you have to be taught each one separately. So, economic liberals aren’t always social liberals, and here I’m referring to mainstream social liberalism. A great example are the founding fathers of America, super liberal products of the Enlightenment no? But oh look, racists and misogynists. How can that be?
    Because those other forms of oppression and discrimination didn’t affect them! Its the same thing with liberal d00dz of all kinds, and liberal chicks, too. Classism? Racism? Sexism? All over the liberal party and its base. We could get into a discussion on why some liberal d00dz happen to be sincere feminists, both misguided and ignorant sincere feminists, and knowledgeable and educated ones. But it seems like it would be the start of a long derail, maybe one of the authors can start a post about it? I dunno. Never assume that someone subscribes to a particular ideology based on one opinion or subscription to similar or related ideologies. Would you assume a physics professor was a mathematician or chemist also? Same thing.

  446. some dude
    some dude October 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

    Sorry if this has been brought up before, but there’s way too much text to read through just to post a quick comment. That said, I’m not saying I like the man of the hour, but the author seems to have neglected in her thinking the fact that people do not have the right to not be recorded on public property. As such, the women in the video had no legitimate expectation of not having themselves being recorded and the media being posted on the net. So outside of the Man of the hour’s disturbing views, this seems to be a post about “how *dare* this man post a video of women in a protest he finds attractive” to me.

  447. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

    Clarisse Thorn

    FYI, I was one of those people that saw red the first time I read your piece on calling men creeps. The second time I read it a few weeks ago, I thought you made some good points about it being more useful to call out specific behavior rather than use an insult in response to said behavior.

    The parts that still left me annoyed (which, to be fair, has as much to do with the fact that it is a blog post and not a thesis) is that

    1) It’s not an either or choice. A lot of blog posts that I see about creeps do tend to talk about the behavior as well as use the label creep. Because a lot of the ones I read tend to be written by feminists and deconstructing the behavior and what makes it creepy is part of the game.

    2) Sometimes it’s more dangerous to address the behavior directly. As unfair and imperfect as it is, sometimes labeling someone as a type of loser is a safer way to get out of a dangerous situation than addressing the behavior explicitly and expecting the people around you to back you up. And creep is a better term to use than many others in this situation, because it tells other women that it’s not just that the guy in question is a social outcast, it’s also that he is unsafe.

    I really really wish number 2 wasn’t necessary – and obviously it tends to be less necessary online – but I think asking women not to use the word creep, rather than encouraging them to also/instead address the specific behavior only when it is safe to do so, creates a no-win situation where it sounds like you are expecting women to value men’s feelings over our safety. I suspect that’s a big part of why you got the reaction you did.

    I’m sorry you feel you wish you hadn’t written it though, because it helped me realize that part of the reason why it is so important to address the behavior when it is safe to do so is because it makes safer to do so overall.

  448. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 21, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

    some dude:
    Sorry if this has been brought up before, but there’s way too much text to read through just to post a quick comment. That said, I’m not saying I like the man of the hour, but the author seems to have neglected in her thinking the fact that people do not have the right to not be recorded on public property. As such, the women in the video had no legitimate expectation of not having themselves being recorded and the media being posted on the net. So outside of the Man of the hour’s disturbing views, this seems to be a post about “how *dare* this man post a video of women in a protest he finds attractive” to me.

    OK. Please also note that people here were screaming at Jill for posting his FB page thread and going on and on about his privacy. When his FB was open to the public at the time.

    And while he may have a right to do that, we have a right to tell him that he’s being a creepy-ass misogynist, and point out that it’s fucked up to focus on the looks of women (but the ideas of men) and treat women like their ideas only matter if a dude considers them hot.

  449. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

    some dude:
    So outside of the Man of the hour’s disturbing views, this seems to be a post about “how *dare* this man post a video of women in a protest he finds attractive” to me.

    I think you mean “outside of what this post is actually about.”

  450. Rare Vos
    Rare Vos October 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

    As such, the women in the video had no legitimate expectation of not having themselves being recorded and the media being posted on the net. So outside of the Man of the hour’s disturbing views, this seems to be a post about “how *dare* this man post a video of women in a protest he finds attractive” to me.

    Let’s strip away the bullshit. What you’re really saying is Bitches shoulda stayed home if they didn’t want to be treated like fucksocks.

  451. DudeBroDoucheTroll
    DudeBroDoucheTroll October 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

    Interesting posts over on the Vimeo page for the video and on the Tumblr blog:

    “As a mother of one of the “Hot Chicks” in this video I have to say I am very thankful that this is respectful. These young women of whom I am so proud, are voicing the movement as this is their future. What is striking to me is the title and then the resulting seriousness and complexity of the protesters. Anyone watching does not doubt for a minute that these people are intelligent, thoughtful and powerful. I am hopeful this movement will spawn a few good candidates, and some standards to hold those who represent us to account. Thank you Steve, my daughter looks beautiful here and strong as she most certainly is.”

    “Hi Steve,
    I am third person on this video, the egyptian face painter.
    Just wanted to thank you for capturing the feminine side of the story and let you know that i do not care if you call me a hot chick. It’s actually humorous and i love it!
    To me, it isn’t about the words used, its about who is saying them and I can tell you have the best of intentions.
    I have been called a “lady” by men that treat me like shit, and a “hot mama” by men who treat (me) with respect and dignity.
    On that note, thank you again.
    Sincerely, Dania”

    Its interesting how the video has you all so worked up, but the people actually featured in it as well as their family members, saw no problem with it and seemed to really enjoyed it.

    I too enjoyed the vid. It was beautifully shot, tasteful, and is hardly “masturbation fodder” as it’s being labeled here. I mean really, if you think something this PG-rated is a male turn-on, then you really don’t understand men. (Have you ever SEEN the internet porn that is readily available these days?) Its like you all watched a different video.

    Or is it just the title that has you all in such a tizzy? Clearly it was intended to be controversial and make people click- the producers knew exactly what they were doing. And seeing how the video currently has just south of 500,000 views, I’d say the time that you all have devoted here to discussing it has helped it go viral.

  452. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

    Rare Vos: Let’s strip away the bullshit.What you’re really saying is Bitches shoulda stayed home if they didn’t want to be treated like fucksocks.

    I’ve never heard the expression ‘fucksocks’ before but it would make a great name for a cold weather condom.

  453. LongHairedWeirdo
    LongHairedWeirdo October 21, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

    I’ve seen some people talking about how the rape joke he made was a bit witty, and I think those folks are missing a bigger point.

    The idea is not “that horrible person said that rape probably won’t happen without an erection! Condemn him to the blackest pits of hell for all eternity for saying that!”

    The idea is more like this: when called out on making a pretty hideous statement – “if it gets me hard, it’s good!” – his response was to blow off the criticism in an assholish manner.

    Is that worthy of his being condemned to the blackest pits etc.?

    No. But it shows that you can’t defend him by saying “He’s not a sexist creepy person,” because, well, he is.

    There are sexist creepy people out there who are otherwise decent human beings; they’d share their last crust of bread with you if they were already starving, and all that. But that doesn’t make them not sexist creepy people. And while being a sexist creepy person doesn’t erase being an otherwise decent human being, neither does being an otherwise decent human being erase being a sexist creepy person.

    I see this happen a lot- I used to be guilty of it too. People respond to strong criticism by feeling as if the criticism was “condemn to the blackest pits etc.” and try to defend against it. But that ends up excusing the behavior and delegitimizes the criticism.

  454. zuzu
    zuzu October 21, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

    some dude:
    Sorry if this has been brought up before, but there’s way too much text to read through just to post a quick comment. That said, I’m not saying I like the man of the hour, but the author seems to have neglected in her thinking the fact that people do not have the right to not be recorded on public property. As such, the women in the video had no legitimate expectation of not having themselves being recorded and the media being posted on the net. So outside of the Man of the hour’s disturbing views, this seems to be a post about “how *dare* this man post a video of women in a protest he finds attractive” to me.

    Greenstreet can record them all he wants. However, if he’s going to use their images in his film, he has to consider their right to the use of their images.

    Right of publicity, baby.

  455. zuzu
    zuzu October 21, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

    I’m actually thinking I may want to use this film and some of the issues of right of publicity in my class next semester.

  456. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll:
    Interesting posts over on the Vimeo page for the video and on the Tumblr blog:

    “As a mother of one of the “Hot Chicks” in this video I have to say I am very thankful that this is respectful. These young women of whom I am so proud, are voicing the movement as this is their future. What is striking to me is the title and then the resulting seriousness and complexity of the protesters. Anyone watching does not doubt for a minute that these people are intelligent, thoughtful and powerful. I am hopeful this movement will spawn a few good candidates, and some standards to hold those who represent us to account. Thank you Steve, my daughter looks beautiful here and strong as she most certainly is.”

    “Hi Steve,
    I am third person on this video, the egyptian face painter.
    Just wanted to thank you for capturing the feminine side of the story and let you know that i do not care if you call me a hot chick. It’s actually humorous and i love it!
    To me, it isn’t about the words used, its about who is saying them and I can tell you have the best of intentions.
    I have been called a “lady” by men that treat me like shit, and a “hot mama” by men who treat (me) with respect and dignity.
    On that note, thank you again.
    Sincerely, Dania”

    Its interesting how the video has you all so worked up, but the people actually featured in it as well as their family members, saw no problem with it and seemed to really enjoyed it.

    I too enjoyed the vid. It was beautifully shot, tasteful, and is hardly “masturbation fodder” as it’s being labeled here.I mean really, if you think something this PG-rated is a male turn-on, then you really don’t understand men.(Have you ever SEEN the internet porn that is readily available these days?) Its like you all watched a different video.

    Or is it just the title that has you all in such a tizzy? Clearly it was intended to be controversial and make people click- the producers knew exactly what they were doing.And seeing how the video currently has just south of 500,000 views, I’d say the time that you all have devoted here to discussing it has helped it go viral.

    It’s interesting because I floated this piece towards someone who I totally disagree with politically, (he is a right wing ideologue in the Alex Jones mode,) but who sees him self as anti-establishment.

    Fat Steve 10/15/11 5:59 PM
    Didn’t take long for someone to figure out a sexual angle on the protests http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
    Seis 10/15/11 6:00 PM
    I think thats demeaning to the
    10/15/11 6:00 PM
    protest
    10/15/11 6:00 PM
    have they not all been fkuced enough?

    This douche who thinks Obama is the anti-christ gets it, but ‘liberal’ dudes don’t?

  457. WestEndGirl
    WestEndGirl October 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Rare Vos – is fucksocks yours? It would go so well with buttfuckery or fuckwittage in a sentence! :-)

    Seriously, this seems pretty darn simple to me.

    Rape jokes – not funny. End of.
    Hot or not-type videos solely of women taken without permission from public settings – definitely objectifying and borderline sexual harassment. End of.

    I can’t even understand how this is not obvious. In what world are either of these things not obvious? Oy.

  458. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

    I think the trolls have managed to make this an argument about consenting to be filmed. Even if all the women filmed did sign a consent form, the whole thing is still an exercise in objectification.

  459. DudeBroDoucheTroll
    DudeBroDoucheTroll October 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

    Fat Steve: It’s interesting because I floated this piece towards someone who I totally disagree with politically, (he is a right wing ideologue in the Alex Jones mode,) but who sees him self as anti-establishment.

    Fat Steve 10/15/11 5:59 PM
    Didn’t take long for someone to figure out a sexual angle on the protests http://hotchicksofoccupywallstreet.tumblr.com/
    Seis 10/15/11 6:00 PM
    I think thats demeaning to the
    10/15/11 6:00 PM
    protest
    10/15/11 6:00 PM
    have they not all been fkuced enough?

    This douche who thinks Obama is the anti-christ gets it, but ‘liberal’ dudes don’t?

    What was your friend’s reaction to the video? I think the Tumblr comes off much worse than the video because the women featured on it have no voice there. They’re just pretty faces. The video is a different story though. They are each given ample time to express their opinions on OWS and the part they’re playing in the movement.

  460. Tony
    Tony October 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

    Its interesting how the video has you all so worked up, but the people actually featured in it as well as their family members, saw no problem with it and seemed to really enjoyed it.

    That’s a message from one person featured in the video. It’s great if she wasn’t upset, but she can’t speak for all the women in the video.

    And she can’t speak for the women who weren’t featured in the video but would shy away from voicing their opinions because of fear of having their image appropriated like this, at least one of whom has commented above.

    Additionally, there’s something inherently problematic about objectifying someone like this without their consent, and the idea that the main way for women to come to prominence in the protest is to be advertised as “hot chicks.” Is it sexist? The very fact that we’re asking this question and having this debate suggests that something is wrong.

    Finally, the number of hits to the site doesn’t justify anything. Sarah Palin sold millions of books– does that make her right? No. You’ll never convince me to hop on the bandwagon based on popularity alone.

  461. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

    Did he get prior consent? Signed releases? I mean, we had all of these Internet Legal Eagles in a tizzy, lecturing Jill on how FB and/or Greenstreet could and would go after her for using screenshots of FB, but they think it’s totally okay for him to video and snap women without their knowledge or consent. After the fact isn’t good enough, actually. Because here’s the thing: if I was one of those women, I’d be fucking livid.

    And not for nothing, but you douchey trolls seem to be missing the point-quite a talent of yours. So I’ll say it again: women are judged constantly on our looks. We are determined to be worthy to listen to or take seriously depending up on the way we look. FAR MORE then men are. When you go on and on about how hot certain women are, even while praising their minds or whatever, you’re basically saying that women only deserve to be heard and considered when men deem them attractive. That is so much conservative bullshit, and I don’t want to be a part of any movement that perpetuates the shit that the right wing embraces.

  462. Tony
    Tony October 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

    The video is a different story though. They are each given ample time to express their opinions on OWS and the part they’re playing in the movement.

    But the premise is still that their voice only matters because they’re hot. Hence, no “ugly chicks” are featured. When will we *really* start respecting and supporting women?

  463. Souzeau
    Souzeau October 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

    How are there people seriously defending this guy? I mean…what? This is a guy photographing people without their consent, and posting them on a “hot chicks” website. That is creepy as hell, no matter how you look at it.

  464. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    Sheelzebub: So I’ll say it again: women are judged constantly on our looks. We are determined to be worthy to listen to or take seriously depending up on the way we look. FAR MORE then men are. When you go on and on about how hot certain women are, even while praising their minds or whatever, you’re basically saying that women only deserve to be heard and considered when men deem them attractive. That is so much conservative bullshit, and I don’t want to be a part of any movement that perpetuates the shit that the right wing embraces.

    Exactly, which is why this is still wrong even if he produces signed releases from all those featured.

  465. DudeBroDoucheTroll
    DudeBroDoucheTroll October 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

    Sheelzebub:
    We are determined to be worthy to listen to or take seriously depending up on the way we look.FAR MORE then men are.

    We as HUMANS- not one particular gender, are constantly judged on appearances. That’s life. Its shitty but that’s how our monkey-brains work. We make snap decisions based on appearances rather than take the time to actually get to know that person. We’re all guilty of it.

    Statistics show that on average, a bald dude like me will always make less money that a guy with a full head of hair with the same skill set, for the same job. But what can you do? Life is not fair.

  466. Wonder
    Wonder October 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

    EG: I completely agree.Now go explain that to Greenstreet and his ilk, so that they stop being such sexist assholes and get on with making common cause with the women at OWS against the exploitative, punitive economic system that drives the US.

    THIS THIS THIS x INFINITY

    EG: I completely agree.Now go explain that to Greenstreet and his ilk, so that they stop being such sexist assholes and get on with making common cause with the women at OWS against the exploitative, punitive economic system that drives the US.

    THIS THIS THIS TIMES INFINITY

  467. DudeBroDoucheTroll
    DudeBroDoucheTroll October 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    Tony: But the premise is still that their voice only matters because they’re hot. Hence, no “ugly chicks” are featured. When will we *really* start respecting and supporting women?

    He featured some attractive women but many that a lot of people would consider very plain. I think you’re still getting hung up on the title, which again- was clearly intended to be controversial and get clicks, and is not a very apt description of what is depicted in the video. I think the common thread between the women in the video- both attractive and not- is that they are all passionate for their cause, intelligent, and well spoken. Which was the point of the whole video.

  468. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. October 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: But what can you do? Life is not fair.

    Anyone else find it hilarious that a movement for equality is populated by dudes who don’t its important for life to be fair?

  469. Lisa
    Lisa October 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |

    Maria:
    I’m a rape victim and I thought that was kind of funny.Not hysterical, but just like, “Heh heh.”

    You can always look at something in a negative way, or you can take a lighter look at things.If anything, that’s what my attack taught me.It was a joking observation and I’m sure he meant nothing by it :)

    I am also a rape victim, and I do not find it funny at all. In fact, my attacks have taught me how unfunny all of this really is.

  470. DudeBroDoucheTroll
    DudeBroDoucheTroll October 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

    Kristen J.: Anyone else find it hilarious that a movement for equality is populated by dudes who don’t its important for life to be fair?

    Pretending that we can turn the world in utopia where everyone is treated in a completely fair way sounds nice, but c’mon. There’s idealism and then there’s naiveté.

    Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter. This needs to be done NOW. Wall Street owns the government, and the system is rigged in such a way that we can never elect anyone who can actually change things. We need systemic change, we need it now, and it can only happen from the grassroots.

  471. Kristen J.
    Kristen J. October 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter. This needs to be done NOW.

    Yeah, there’s no instability in a society where women are judged for the quality of their rack rather than the quality of their ideas. But be sure to continue to differentiate your demands that other people *give you their money* so that you can be treated equally from the demands of women to be treated equally. It really brings home the depth of your hypocrisy.

  472. Wonder
    Wonder October 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

    Tony: I’ll second the ‘this is fucked up’, but I’m not sure how much it means as I’m not really an important writer with a ‘voice’ and thus the power to represent a more generic class of men. I had my say in the previous thread after some real reflection. And the current thread only reinforces the things I voiced there. Rebecca Traister, as usual, says it better than I could.

    (Incidentally, soon after reading the original post, I was chatting with a young woman who has been attending OWS over the past few weeks and she mentioned this very topic out of the blue. She told me she was treated very differently by men in the movement depending on her perceived availability, and that while she understood that this could give her a leg up in ‘the movement’, she wanted to be judged based on her substantive contributions, even if this meant fewer opportunities. I didn’t know if she had seen the ‘Hot Chicks of OWS’ or not, but I think her comments were based off independent personal experiences.)

    Bill: Please don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not saying you should be friendly towards the people who are trolling. Rather, I think it would be a better idea to simply ignore these people, ban them, and only pay attention to those who are expressing actual opinions in a civil manner.

    There’s no real point in arguing with trolls, their only goal is to get a reaction, the angrier the better. And by responding, they are getting what they want.

    You must have missed the part in the Original Post where Jill wrote that she was moderating comments more lightly than usual so people could see what kind of people this guy’s fans were….

  473. Tony
    Tony October 21, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: He featured some attractive women but many that a lot of people would consider very plain. I think you’re still getting hung up on the title, which again- was clearly intended to be controversial and get clicks, and is not a very apt description of what is depicted in the video. I think the common thread between the women in the video- both attractive and not- is that they are all passionate for their cause, intelligent, and well spoken.Which was the point of the whole video.

    The video featured all relatively young woman, aged 18-35, with long lingering shots on the body, facial features, breasts, and tattoos and arms, even while they were talking. NONE of them fall outside conventional standards of attractiveness. For the first nearly a minute there was no talking at all, only body shots. Then when the talking starts, the music continues and the shots continue to focus on womens’ bodies in the same vein. It’s a really effective way at undercutting and trivializing the passion, intelligence, and articulateness of the women featured, actually. And I think it’s bullshit that you can separate a video for one second from the context where it is placed. “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” clearly advertises the point of the video, and the content of the video supports that. Nor does “being provocative” legitimize sexism. Of course sexism is provocative. That does not mean that you should engage in it.

  474. Tony
    Tony October 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: We as HUMANS- not one particular gender, are constantly judged on appearances. That’s life. …We’re all guilty of it.

    That’s a cop out. It’s utter bullshit to say that women are not judged based on their looks a lot more than men. If you really think things are equal between the sexes in our society on that front you are deluded.

  475. Wonder
    Wonder October 21, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

    Josef:
    I’m as liberal as they come (-8.00, -6.56 on the political compass scale) and I don’t see a problem here.
    I have to blog about how OWS doesn’t accept minorities, or ZOMG someone made a video of the attractive women at the protest and even though some of those women have contacted the film-maker to say they like what he did he’s still an agent of the evil patriarchy and so is everyone who doesn’t stand up and tell him about his evilness.

    ok, go ahead, tell me i’m a moron who can’t see past his privilege, and we can all waste time arguing about whether my egalitarian liberal ass isn’t privilege-sensitive enough while Dimon and Koch and the rest of ‘em laugh at what fools they have the privilege to be lined up against.

    Poor liberal white guy. you have to THINK about inequality….

    the rest of us have to, you know, actually LIVE WITH THE RESULTS

  476. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 21, 2011 at 5:56 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter. This needs to be done NOW.

    Yeah ladies, y’all are just gonna have to wait to be treated like a person. We can’t handle equality for you folks while also focusing on real problems. You know, the ones that affect dudes too.

  477. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Pretending that we can turn the world in utopia where everyone is treated in a completely fair way sounds nice, but c’mon. There’s idealism and then there’s naiveté.

    OMG THE IRONY OF THIS COMMENT AND YOUR MOVEMENT JUST THREW UP ON MY SHOES.

  478. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

    “Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter.”

    Did you know, asshole, that more adult women live in poverty than adult men? Did you also know that nearly 25% of our nation’s children are currently living in poverty? And that poverty rates are significantly higher for households headed by single mothers?

    Even if it was untrue that in general, inequalities are interconnected and therefore all inequalities are always germaine, the fact that there is a gender difference in poverty would definitely mean that sexism is relevant to the conversation.

    That people consider children – full stop – to be so much of a “woman’s issue” (and that “women’s issues” are somehow different from all those other “important issues”) that this is (so far) hardly mentioned rather than at the forefront of the #ows conversation is not “a different matter” from the discussion of income inequality.*

    Consequently, the topic of sexism** – especially how women are perceived in public spaces, in public debate, and how “women’s issues” are treated – is a central part of the discussion of income inequality.

    And, of course, all of this is completely beside the point that sexism is always worth discussing in the first place. And that to separate “sexism” from “income inequality” is to, once again, treat “women’s issues” as separate from “[people's] issues.”

    *I could give plenty more similarly concrete examples, but I suspect the effort would be wasted, so…anyone else want to take a stab at it, feel free!

    **Likewise racism, ableism, and all other inequalities that correlate to poverty/income inequality.

  479. jennygadget
    jennygadget October 21, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

    “He featured some attractive women but many that a lot of people would consider very plain.”

    I just…

    So, your argument now is that he can’t be that sexist bc the women he picked were, in your opinion, not really that hot????? I think possibly you need to get a new dictionary bc that word, it does not mean what you think it means.

  480. Tony
    Tony October 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm |

    PrettyAmiable: OMG THE IRONY OF THIS COMMENT AND YOUR MOVEMENT JUST THREW UP ON MY SHOES.

    I know, huh? In the video one of the shots is the carving of a sign that says “idealism is the only hope” or something like that. Clearly the wonderful video convinced DoucheTroll with its articulateness and passion!

  481. EG
    EG October 21, 2011 at 6:38 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Pretending that we can turn the world in utopia where everyone is treated in a completely fair way sounds nice, but c’mon. There’s idealism and then there’s naiveté.

    Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter.This needs to be done NOW. Wall Street owns the government, and the system is rigged in such a way that we can never elect anyone who can actually change things. We need systemic change, we need it now, and it can only happen from the grassroots.

    I mean, wealth inequity is important. It makes dudes unhappy! But misogyny, sexism, alienating women, making them feel as though the men with whom they’re supposed to be working think of them as fucktoys, that stuff can wait. What, you want men to give a shit about how women experience the world? What are you, some kind of naif? We can’t make a utopia, here, where women can express their political views without their male allies turning the protest into a hostile environment! What’s more important, anyway, women being able to participate fully in the defining political protest of our time, or getting me hard not making me uncomfortable solidarity? Yeah, I said “solidarity”! You chicks need to shut up in the interests of solidarity!

    Wait, you mean you think we should care about you in the interests of solidarity? What are you, naive?

  482. Wonder
    Wonder October 21, 2011 at 6:58 pm |

    Auguste: Oh, so now you’re claiming to speak for men as well? Jesus.

    /speaking for Jesus

    Hey, I’d rather have this crowd speaking for Jesus, than the consevatrolls that usually

    Amanda Marcotte:
    I am skeptical that they want more people at OWS, because these antics demonstrate a strong desire to NOT have women show up.

    I am skeptical that THIS GUY wants more people at OCCUPY. he may WANT to discredit the movement….. not like there’s not historical precedent for that…

  483. trees
    trees October 21, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: He featured some attractive women but many that a lot of people would consider very plain. I think you’re still getting hung up on the title, which again- was clearly intended to be controversial and get clicks, and is not a very apt description of what is depicted in the video. I think the common thread between the women in the video- both attractive and not- is that they are all passionate for their cause, intelligent, and well spoken.Which was the point of the whole video.

    So now even the “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” aren’t attractive enough?! Where does that leave the rest of us? What do you imagine the role of us old ugly bitches in your new world? Are we just a little less equal than the “super hot”?

  484. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 21, 2011 at 11:33 pm |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Pretending that we can turn the world in utopia where everyone is treated in a completely fair way sounds nice, but c’mon. There’s idealism and then there’s naiveté.Acknowledging that the wealth distribution is becoming so lopsided that its undermining the stability of the entire country is a different matter. This needs to be done NOW. Wall Street owns the government, and the system is rigged in such a way that we can never elect anyone who can actually change things. We need systemic change, we need it now, and it can only happen from the grassroots.

    And alienating a large chunk of the grassroots is the best way to go about this, of course! Do, continue mansplaining to us about What the Important Shit Really Is. While the movement continues to crumble because of divisive and dismissive attitudes like yours. Odd how we have to accept the shit you dudebros shovel out, but it’s a terrible and awful thing for you to consider that maybe you should consider how fucking damaging your sense of entitlement and privilege is to your fellow activists. Who apparently don’t count for shit if we’re not hot enough and are only good for bait. I mean, it’s not like we get shit like that from conservatives.

  485. cloudiah
    cloudiah October 21, 2011 at 11:58 pm |

    Fat Steve: I never said being a virgin makes you a failure as person. Mother Theresa, for example, was pretty good. I merely gave my opinion that no one will ever want to have sex with Chris, because he is a total dick. The small penis thing was merely abuse.

    And god, you sound fucking childish ‘Steve made 2 comments that are quite offensive’ As if any of the women who regularly post on this blog need you to tell them when I’m being offensive. I get called on my shit all the time. When I’m shown I’m wrong I apologize, when I am convinced I’m right I stick to my guns. I hate to break your fantasy but the women here are not castrating man-haters, I am treated with as much respect as anyone (not a huge amount ;) )

    Please, I would like to encourage you not to use “Mother Teresa” as an example of a “pretty good” virgin. Can we do better? (Not a criticism of you per se, Fat Steve.)

  486. cwaltz
    cwaltz October 22, 2011 at 5:26 am |

    Jill,

    I wanted to let you know that you have people that support your position. As a woman and a mother of a daughter I’m offended by the joking. A real man would have apologized for his not meant to be douchebaggery behavior(heck I would have excused it as not having a vague clue about how it feels to be judged by a single criteria like looks first and foremost had he apologized and taken it down). It’s pretty apparent that Greenstreet qualifies in the boy category.

    Gentlemen defending this kind of behavior: How would it feel if women charecterized you by your bank account statement(or lack thereof)? It’s just as tacky to discuss a woman’s “assets.” If you don’t look at people from the inside out (thoughts , feelings, hopes) then don’t be surprised when people(particularly smart and attractive women who’ve had to deal with the boys will be boys crap their whole lives) call you a douchebag and question whether or not you should be reclassified as pond scum instead of part of the human race.

    Anyway sock it to him Jill!

  487. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 22, 2011 at 6:32 am |

    DudeBroDoucheTroll: Pretending that we can turn the world in utopia where everyone is treated in a completely fair way sounds nice, but c’mon. There’s idealism and then there’s naiveté.

    You realize that someone can say the same thing about OWS–that this is not a utopia, that things will always be unfair, that the protesters are being niave, your grand pronouncment that this is far more important than the piddling concerns of the wommenfolk who are being driven from this movement thanks to sexist behavior like that of Greenstreet, and sexist rhetoric and ideas by activists like you? Also, it’s pretty fucking arrogant to pronounce our concerns as unimportant when you’re not the one who is dealing with institutional misogyny every day. I mean really, you d00ds come here and mansplain (and whitesplain on tumblr) so hard and only prove my original skepticism about this fauxgressive movement right.

  488. Emily WK
    Emily WK October 22, 2011 at 9:13 am |

    tinfoil hattie:
    Auguste, you have a historical tendency to disagree with me? I had no idea.

    @Emily WK, how/where did I misquote you?

    I think if you click your name in my post you’ll see it (post 419), but you attributed the quote about “don’t these men have wives / children / etc?” to me, and I didn’t say it. It was jjuliaava at 384.

  489. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    cloudiah: Please, I would like to encourage you not to use “Mother Teresa” as an example of a “pretty good” virgin. Can we do better? (Not a criticism of you per se, Fat Steve.)

    How about Anne Frank?

  490. Li
    Li October 22, 2011 at 9:23 am |

    Emily WK: I think if you click your name in my post you’ll see it (post 419), but you attributed the quote about “don’t these men have wives / children / etc?” to me, and I didn’t say it. It was jjuliaava at 384.

    Just a heads up, but the “Quote this comment” function has a few kinks in it and occasionally grabs the wrong name, so it’s fairly likely that the misattribution came from a code hiccup rather than tinfoil hattie.

  491. Emily WK
    Emily WK October 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |

    Li: Just a heads up, but the “Quote this comment” function has a few kinks in it and occasionally grabs the wrong name, so it’s fairly likely that the misattribution came from a code hiccup rather than tinfoil hattie.

    That is totally possible. I hope I didn’t make it seem like I was mad at tinfoil hattie at all – I just wanted to clarify. I don’t think there was any malice involved.

  492. zuzu
    zuzu October 22, 2011 at 11:25 am |

    Fat Steve: How about Anne Frank?

    If you read the uncensored version of her diary, I think not.

  493. Feminist Call to Action: Occupy Dudeville | Radfem Hub

    [...] “Steven Greenstreet proves he’s definitely not a misogynist by making rape jokes.” . . . one of men who made the “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” video is a total creep [...]

  494. jjuliaava
    jjuliaava October 22, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    Emily WK: Misquoted – I didn’t say that.

    IT WAS MEEEEE!!

  495. pondscum
    pondscum October 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

    cwaltz:
    Gentlemen defending this kind of behavior: How would it feel if women charecterized you by your bank account statement(or lack thereof)

    They do, constantly, I can pretty much count the number of times i’ve spoken with a female who has cared about something OTHER than a) how much i make, b) how many fights I’ve been in, c) How big my dick is, on 1 hand.

    … and no, im not talking about potential partners. In my experience, women who are actually gender egalitarian and not faux feminist are EXTREMELY rare, and if you treat a non feminist lady like a feminist lady, they either physically attack you or use shaming language as loud and as public as possible.

  496. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 22, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

    pondscum: They do, constantly, I can pretty much count the number of times i’ve spoken with a female who has cared about something OTHER than a) how much i make, b) how many fights I’ve been in, c) How big my dick is, on 1 hand.

    Hahahaha so here’s how I read this

    A) (growing indignation) I make plenty of money! The last guy I went out with, I paid for the part of the date I recommended because I knew it was pricey. I like monetary equity!
    B) Fights are stupid! That answer better be 0! (indignation grows)
    C) ….HAHAHAHA. Because fact, I put my hand in that guy’s pants on our first date, and I was pleasantly surprised.

  497. Steph M.
    Steph M. October 22, 2011 at 7:15 pm |

    The Man:
    I have not seen the mentioned video but can only assume he filmed it ‘personally’ in a ‘public’ space, meaning Releases and the such are NOT required. You broke the law, he did not. Sort it out, if you want to be taken seriously.

    Actually, he did break the law. It’s legal to *take* photos of people in public without their permission, because they are in public. It is not legal to *publish* their photos without a model release in many states, including the one where he took the photos. Unless he has signed releases for every person appearing in his photos and videos, he is in violation of the law.

  498. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig October 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

    1. Doesn’t really matter to me. Once I get an actual job, I know lots and lots of cheap places to go. I’ve never seen the point of a lot of high end foods, anyway. (Pate? Seriously? And lobster? Why would you pay lots and lots of moolah for an overgrown bug?)
    2.Are we talking about ring fights or street fights? ‘Cause I’d actually be cool with the first one.
    3. Like every single guy in the US who’s hit puberty doesn’t care about boob size.

  499. EG
    EG October 22, 2011 at 9:31 pm |

    pondscum: In my experience, women who are actually gender egalitarian and not faux feminist are EXTREMELY rare, and if you treat a non feminist lady like a feminist lady, they either physically attack you or use shaming language as loud and as public as possible.

    It is so hard being a dude. Sometimes ladies just aren’t very nice to you, and then you feel sad.

    However do they manage to carry on?

  500. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 22, 2011 at 9:43 pm |

    PrettyAmiable: C) ….HAHAHAHA. Because fact, I put my hand in that guy’s pants on our first date, and I was pleasantly surprised.

    If anyone revisits this, I originally found that comment funny because apparently penis size mattered to me that night. Now I find it funny because

    pondscum: c) How big my dick is, on 1 hand.

    hahahahaha get it? ON ONE HAND. Like the one I put in his pants.

    BADUM CRASH. Also, I might be wastey face.

  501. TummelVision 83: Deanna Zandt, Dorian Taylor, and ContactCon | Tummelvision

    [...] Feministe: Steven Greenstreet proves he’s definitely not a misogynist by making rape jokes [...]

  502. kidzsho
    kidzsho October 23, 2011 at 1:32 am |

    None of this would be social network if comedy central didn’t dedecu the man show in 1834

  503. pondscum
    pondscum October 23, 2011 at 5:26 am |

    EG: It is so hard being a dude.Sometimes ladies just aren’t very nice to you, and then you feel sad.

    However do they manage to carry on?

    The same way I would assume gender egalitarian ladies handle things when dudes aren’t nice to them, they call them sexist and find somebody else.

    PrettyAmiable: Hahahaha so here’s how I read this

    A) (growing indignation) I make plenty of money! The last guy I went out with, I paid for the part of the date I recommended because I knew it was pricey. I like monetary equity!
    B) Fights are stupid! That answer better be 0! (indignation grows)
    C) ….HAHAHAHA. Because fact, I put my hand in that guy’s pants on our first date, and I was pleasantly surprised.

    Obviously my problem is I wasn’t dating YOU then ;)

    I wasn’t playing the “lets lump all women together card” I was simply pointing out that it shouldn’t be done to men either because we DO know what it feels like when “women charecterize you by your bank account statement(or lack thereof)” because it happens to us all the time.

    Not trying to be all “what about the menz”y but if your going to throw out a comment implying that the cultural meat market doesn’t happen to men I think its appropriate to say “excuse me but it does, and it belongs in the same sexist bucket holding your women don’t get judged by how they look if they don’t want to” trope

    I believe the technical term for it as it is known on this blog is “calling bullshit”? Please correct me if I’ve used the term improperly ;)

  504. becky
    becky October 23, 2011 at 5:46 am |

    pondscum: I can pretty much count the number of times i’ve spoken with a female who has cared about something OTHER than a) how much i make, b) how many fights I’ve been in, c) How big my dick is, on 1 hand.

    I wasn’t playing the “lets lump all women together card”

    …make sense?

  505. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 23, 2011 at 6:56 am |

    Aaaaand maybe Greenstreet and his supporters can see just how reactionary, traditionalist, and conservative they are in their views. I mean, it’s not like right wing pundit d00ds go off on women’s looks as a measure of their worth at all.

  506. tinfoil hattie
    tinfoil hattie October 23, 2011 at 7:30 am |

    Yepper, the “blockquote” function messed up, indeed. Sorry, jjuliava & emilyWK. I didn’t think anyone was annoyed, btw. I was just befuddled.

  507. QuantumSparkle
    QuantumSparkle October 23, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    Matt:
    The thing is that each kind of radicalism is a distinct entity. In general you have to be taught each one separately. So, economic liberals aren’t always social liberals, and here I’m referring to mainstream social liberalism.

    Never assume that someone subscribes to a particular ideology based on one opinion or subscription to similar or related ideologies. Would you assume a physics professor was a mathematician or chemist also? Same thing.

    Okay, I promise this isn’t a total derail…
    No, as a soon-to-be physicist (yay grad school), I don’t assume a physics professor is also an expert in mathematics and chemistry, but all physicists have a basic working knowledge of both fields (particularly math). You absolutely can’t get a degree in physics without knowing some of the fundamentals of modern chemistry (Pauli exclusion, Schrodinger equation, hydrogen atom). And math is so central to the study of physics that the idea of a physicist unfamiliar with calculus is absurd.

    So, to carry on with your analogy, no, I don’t expect an economic liberal to be an EXPERT in social justice or feminism. But, I do expect familiarity with the basics: oppressed classes, rape culture, racism, sexism, *ism, etc… The subjects are intricately linked, and you can’t tease economic disadvantage apart the other isms in our society. Economic liberals who are completely ignorant of social justice are pretty deficient in their understanding of their own field, honestly.

  508. T
    T October 23, 2011 at 9:06 am |

    b:
    Don’t want to be objectified? DON’T DRESS LIKE IT. How hard is that to understand?

    How does an object dress, exactly?

    If I find guys in suits attractive, am I allowed to go to my local law firm, take pictures of all the guys I see, and then organize them into a “hot or not” website where we all discuss how clitorific (or unclitorific) these men are? I mean…come on. They were totally wearing SUITS for goodness sake. They must have been dying for some female attention. Only objects wear suits.

  509. EG
    EG October 23, 2011 at 9:40 am |

    The same way I would assume gender egalitarian ladies handle things when dudes aren’t nice to them, they call them sexist and find somebody else.

    The issue is that men not being nice to us is the least of women’s problems, so suggesting that the two situations are analogous is absurd. When women have disproportionate political and economic power, and use such power to create a society in which not being nice to you has significant physical and material consequences, I will be concerned. As it is, even with this massive difference in social context and effect, individual women judging you on your bank account and penis size–neither of which is evident just by looking at you–is not akin to, say, a woman taking a video camera and going down to a major political protest, saying that she wants to interview you about your concerns and reasons for being there, and then posting pictures/videos on a website under the title “Rich Guys with Big Dicks at Occupy Wall Street.”

  510. Weekly Feminist Reader
    Weekly Feminist Reader October 23, 2011 at 11:09 am |

    [...] douchebag behind the Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street tumblr and video continues to show his misogynist colors by making rape jokes. [...]

  511. N.
    N. October 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

    If you have a movement against the current exploitative state of our government and economic system, a movement decrying the excessive privileges that the 1% get away with while the rest of us suffer, a movement calling for an adjustment of the status quo–

    then how in the hell are attitudes like Greenstreet’s allowed to exist? They clash with what OWS is about. In fact, they seem better suited to right-wing ideology. Racism, antisemitism, sexism…these things should be fought by all people involved in OWS, for they encourage the very actions and attitudes that OWS seems to be protesting. Both men and women should be fighting against these things if they truly want OWS to achieve any relevance.

  512. zuzu
    zuzu October 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

    pondscum: I can pretty much count the number of times i’ve spoken with a female

    A female what? Dairy cow? Lioness? Hen?

  513. Ismone
    Ismone October 23, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

    I can count on one hand the number of times I have spoken with a woman who chooses men based on any one of pondscum’s three criteria, or believe that such subjects are appropriate conversational topics, let alone the dominant ones.

    Actually, the answer to that one is zero, so. I don’t even need my hands.

  514. preying mantis
    preying mantis October 23, 2011 at 6:54 pm |

    Ismone:
    I can count on one hand the number of times I have spoken with a woman who chooses men based on any one of pondscum’s three criteria, or believe that such subjects are appropriate conversational topics, let alone the dominant ones.

    Actually, the answer to that one is zero, so.I don’t even need my hands.

    I think the problem might be that most of us know human women, or at least can differentiate them from the first wave of killbots sent by Pornulon Prime at the beginning of the Femme Wars. If you can’t (and that’s a pretty rookie mistake), I suppose you might wind up believing that all women are ridiculous alien killbots or something.

  515. pondscum
    pondscum October 23, 2011 at 7:18 pm |

    EG:
    The issue is that men not being nice to us is the least of women’s problems, so suggesting that the two situations are analogous is absurd.

    I didn’t, PrettyAmiable did, I was only responding to the statement “how would you feel if women did XYZ” with “well they do and it feels shitty”.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I have spoken with a woman who chooses men based on any one of pondscum’s three criteria, or believe that such subjects are appropriate conversational topics, let alone the dominant ones.

    Actually, the answer to that one is zero, so. I don’t even need my hands.

    Don’t know what to tell you, apparently you’ve been lucky enough to mostly interact with gender egalitarian women, I apparently am not so lucky.

  516. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 23, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

    T: How does an object dress, exactly?

    Rubik’s cubes are such sluts.

    pondscum: Not trying to be all “what about the menz”y but if your going to throw out a comment implying that the cultural meat market doesn’t happen to men I think its appropriate to say “excuse me but it does, and it belongs in the same sexist bucket holding your women don’t get judged by how they look if they don’t want to” trope

    Going back to this – the bigger issue isn’t whether or not you get judged on superficial bullshit when you’re dating. That’s fine – whatever gets your rocks off. Maybe some girls are really into wallets, I dunno. But how frequently are men determined to have valid viewpoints or voices (as in the OP) on the basis of their appearance? It happens, right? I’ve heard this be an issue with severely overweight guys especially, but it happens all. the. time. to women in workplace settings, in protest settings, in whatever-the-hell settings.

  517. pondscum
    pondscum October 23, 2011 at 7:49 pm |

    PrettyAmiable: Going back to this – the bigger issue isn’t whether or not you get judged on superficial bullshit when you’re dating. That’s fine – whatever gets your rocks off. Maybe some girls are really into wallets, I dunno. But how frequently are men determined to have valid viewpoints or voices (as in the OP) on the basis of their appearance? It happens, right? I’ve heard this be an issue with severely overweight guys especially, but it happens all. the. time. to women in workplace settings, in protest settings, in whatever-the-hell settings.

    Agreed, I was only responding to your example, not the larger issue.

    heh, and for the record I notice it quite a bit when they say “casual” is the dress for an environment and the giant black dude wearing “urban wear” shows up :)

  518. Hot Chicks, Cold Sexists and Occupy Wall Street | POLITICAL MOSAIC

    [...] According to Jill Filipovic of Feministe, Greenstreet responded to her criticism by Google image-searching her and tweeting pictures of her in a dress she wore for a friend’s feminist eco-friendly fashion show with commentary like, “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.” Filipovic also discovered a rape joke Greenstreet made on his Facebook wall. It’s becoming more and more clear why Greenstreet’s “contribution” to #OccupyWallStreet took the form it did. [...]

  519. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 24, 2011 at 6:21 am |

    zuzu: A female what?Dairy cow?Lioness? Hen?

    Yep. I’ve noticed that hyper-defensive anti-feminist d00ds refer to “women” as “females.” Like this is Wild Kingdom or something. It’s a useful dog whistle.

  520. Brenda
    Brenda October 24, 2011 at 8:53 am |

    John:
    Rape isn’t funny, but the idea of rape without an erect penis is funny. Those facebook comments are in jest. That is how I see them. I think ya’ll are going a bit overboard with this.

    Tell that to the guy who was raped by the NYPD officers with a toilet plunger. See how funny he thinks it is. Or remember that mentally disabled girl who was raped by all those jocks by a broom handle? Where was that, I think it was “Glen Ridge” or something. You don’t need an erect penis to rape, and for you to suggest that rape is ever funny is disgusting. Plus it clearly shows why you would think this is “going overboard”. Enjoy your male privilege. Just remember it is at our expense.

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

    [...] internet earlier this week is most definitely “creepy.”  Jill Fillipovic at Feministe has a good rundown on the problems with Greenstreet and his personal Twitter harassment of her for calling him out on [...]

  522. robin dennis
    robin dennis October 24, 2011 at 10:34 am |

    Anyone interested in creating a counter Tumblr focusing on the involvement of women in the OWS movement as opposed to just our aesthetic presence?

  523. Steve
    Steve October 24, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    Some say “this is just the way men are.” But not really. In cultures, particularly tribal cultures where there is lots of nudity, men don’t go around saying “wow, that chick is hot! Look at those boobs!” In some cultures, a women’s breasts aren’t even considered a sexually attractive part of her body. It’s easy to blame everything on biology but when you look at different anthropology studies it becomes pretty clear that culture plays the biggest role in how we view the world, including how we view sex and sexual relations.

  524. Abbie
    Abbie October 24, 2011 at 10:34 pm |

    John:
    Rapeisn’tfunny,buttheideaofrapewithoutanerectpenisisfunny.Thosefacebookcommentsareinjest.ThatishowIseethem.Ithinkya’llaregoingabitoverboardwiththis.

    Are you unfamiliar with the concept of being raped by an object, such as a beer bottle or broomstick? I sure as hell don’t find that funny.

  525. “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” – Offensive? | It's Not That Weird

    [...] It began with this video made by an American documentary film-maker. I read a lot of the backlash before I actually watched the video, and I have to say, I kind of enjoyed the video. I thought it [...]

  526. Kate
    Kate October 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

    Maria: Oh goddness me, there is no such thing as a superior sense of humor :) Everyone finds different things funny. I’m sorry you hurt so bad and that you have a lot of anger still, but it gets better. I’m a very optimistic person and unfortunately it gets me in trouble sometimes. I found that the best way to deal with all the anger and hate I felt was to accept that it happened and move on.

    If such things trigger flashbacks for you then maybe it would be a good idea not to read articles like this :( Everything I read seems like it’s bent to instill anger, and while it’s something plenty of people have the right to be mad about, if it’s going to upset you you should probably avoid that.

    I think the point here is that what a normal, well-adjusted person finds funny and laughs off as a joke, a less adjusted person, say a rapist, finds legitimizing. Encouraging. And I’m glad you can see the bright side, but I really doubt you think its okay to encourage rape. We’re talking about saving other girls who may not be as lucky as you to be able to move on after an attack.

  527. The Podcast : Episode 61 | Angry Hippie's Soapbox

    [...] Fuck Steven Greenstreet! [...]

  528. DexX
    DexX October 27, 2011 at 1:15 am |

    I don’t really have much to add, just some bullet points:

    1) I am a bisexual cis male.
    2) I think Greenstreet’s video is idiotic, and that he is a flamingly misogynistic douchenozzle.
    3) I’m a lefty and a supporter of the occupy movement.
    4) Not all guys are like that. I know some members of my gender are fucking idiots, but please don’t despair. Plenty of us like women, respect women, and think that women have plenty of worthwhile things to say, regardless of their subjective “hotness”.

    Sorry, just trying to do my little bit to balance out the testosterone-fuelled fuckery. Carry on!

  529. OBJECTIFICATION NATION: Occupy Hot Chicks! | Shamonica Magazine

    [...] to objectify some ladies for the benefits of sexing up the Occupy Protest. The New York Egoist, Feministe, and Salon magazine seem to [...]

  530. Ampersand
    Ampersand October 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

    Greenstreet added commentary like, “Oh I see, dressing in a short skirt and showing off your body to leering men is totally cool only when you do it” and “Love how these guys stare as you show off your curves.”

    Shorter Greenstreet: It’s totally hypocritical of feminist bloggers to have breasts and other female stuff.

    Is it possible that Greenstreet is actually an Ann Althouse sock puppet?

  531. Feminisms: Joking About Rape Does Not a Feminist Make, Mr. Greenstreet « Kittens With Mittens

    [...] of the “not as good a feminist as me” critics Mr. Greenstreet derided last week, found rape jokes on his facebook page… Oy.  How did I miss this when writing my response?  Oh right, my eyes were rolled so far [...]

  532. June
    June October 27, 2011 at 10:45 pm |

    Was that even a joke? I mean, what he said was in his mind true. I suppose you could rape someone with a flaccid penis, or perhaps with some object (though in some places it wouldnt legally be rape). Now that may be true, but that’s not what the guy was saying. He wasn’t denying those situations, I think he wasn’t thinking of them, really. The question was absurd – does an erection legitimize rape? He answered it honestly, from what I can tell. And yeah, he seems like a douche don’t get me wrong but I think you’re trying too hard to make him seem like an awful human being when he’s merely a creep.

  533. occupying boundaries. « stop! talking.
    occupying boundaries. « stop! talking. October 28, 2011 at 9:44 am |

    [...] again: there’s always some jackass playing dress-up as oh-so-liberal-thus-automatically-anti-sexist. yet, proving again that a lot of guys who’d call themselves progressives certainly don’t give a shit about misogyny as long as it’s sexaaay, greenstreet’s creepiness was not only excused as “boys will be boys”, but actually labelled as furthering the movement, since all these hot chicks on the internet will now lure guys to the rally and now “we” will be oh-so-powerful because of all the dedicated masses! aha. oh, and of course, feminists are just ugly, fat, man-hating humourless, frigid bitches who are just jealous they could never make the top ten, of course – steven greenstreet has a lot of very liberal friends who defend his actions and rape jokes. [...]

  534. Doctress Julia
    Doctress Julia October 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

    Brenda: TellthattotheguywhowasrapedbytheNYPDofficerswithatoiletplunger.Seehowfunnyhethinksitis.Orrememberthatmentallydisabledgirlwhowasrapedbyallthosejocksbyabroomhandle?Wherewasthat,Ithinkitwas“GlenRidge”orsomething.Youdon’tneedanerectpenistorape,andforyoutosuggestthatrapeiseverfunnyisdisgusting.Plusitclearlyshowswhyyouwouldthinkthisis“goingoverboard”.Enjoyyourmaleprivilege.Justrememberitisatourexpense.

    Abner Louima.

  535. unaimed
    unaimed October 29, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

    “Frankly, the kinds of dudes who would come to the OWS protests because they h…”…

    Frankly, the kinds of dudes who would come to the OWS protests because they heard there are hot chicks there? Are not the kinds of dudes I want to be protesting with….

  536. Are Women Safe at Occupy Protests? « The Crawdad Hole

    [...] feminists are beginning to pay attention and report on the misogyny that characterizes the OWS movement and which is evident in the crimes [...]

  537. Bee
    Bee November 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

    Not sure how he thinks saying it’s not OK to take photos of these women and post them on the internet without their knowledge or consent is the same as saying women should not wear short skirts or “show off their bodies.” Seriously, did I miss something here? What the fuck.

  538. Andie
    Andie November 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

    June:
    Was that even a joke? I mean, what he said was in his mind true. I suppose you could rape someone with a flaccid penis, or perhaps with some object (though in some places it wouldnt legally be rape). Now that may be true, but that’s not what the guy was saying. He wasn’t denying those situations, I think he wasn’t thinking of them, really. The question was absurd – does an erection legitimize rape? He answered it honestly, from what I can tell. And yeah, he seems like a douche don’t get me wrong but I think you’re trying too hard to make him seem like an awful human being when he’s merely a creep.

    You may really want to read the Hot Chicks of Occupy Wallstreet, oh and the comment thread here to a little more background.. it’s not just about one rape joke.

  539. Andie
    Andie November 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

    June:
    Was that even a joke? I mean, what he said was in his mind true. I suppose you could rape someone with a flaccid penis, or perhaps with some object (though in some places it wouldnt legally be rape). Now that may be true, but that’s not what the guy was saying. He wasn’t denying those situations, I think he wasn’t thinking of them, really. The question was absurd – does an erection legitimize rape? He answered it honestly, from what I can tell. And yeah, he seems like a douche don’t get me wrong but I think you’re trying too hard to make him seem like an awful human being when he’s merely a creep.

    You may really want to read the Hot Chicks of Occupy Wallstreet thread, oh and the comment thread here to get a little more background.. it’s not just about one rape joke.

  540. Mädchenmannschaft » Blog Archive » Solidarität, aber bitte ohne Sexismus – ein paar Gedanken zur Occupy-Bewegung

    [...] zum Beispiel über den tumblr-Blog von Steven Greenstreet (der übrigens auch ab und zu mal Vergewaltigungswitze vom Stapel lässt) mit dem wahnsinnig originellen Namen Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street (etwa: [...]

  541. jake
    jake November 2, 2011 at 6:27 am |

    “Obviously this guy doesn’t speak for most liberal men. But I actually haven’t seen very many liberal men being like, “This is fucked up,” period. I’ve seen them be like, “Well it’ll attract more men to the protest!” and “Well it’s kind of a problem but it’s not really that bad” (there are of course a few exceptions). ”

    Just for the record – I, male, think Mr Greenstreet’s blog and ideas are absolutely fucked up!

  542. ZoBabe
    ZoBabe November 2, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    Gallows is my favorite kind of humor. I will continue to laugh at completely inappropriate shit. Lucky social lube for me, won’t argue the issue here.

  543. ZoBabe
    ZoBabe November 2, 2011 at 11:53 am |

    And my night… “Why did the feminist cross the road? To suck my dick.”
    Is that funny? If you think that’s funny, why?

  544. ZoBabe
    ZoBabe November 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

    I’ve been known to laugh at rape jokes… even make them. (I’m a rape victim and reserve the right, not to mention cultivating a thick f@$%’n skin) but I’m afraid I still don’t see the humor of the above “joke.”
    So if some progressive dude could take the time out of his busy schedule to explain to me how that’s funny, I’d really appreciate it.

  545. “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street”: Really? | Love me or leave me – - >

    [...] Quellen: Erika Lust’s Blog – Caroline Heldman’s Blog – feministe.us [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.