4 ms·

>he was accosted by two young men with cheeks painted with makeup, who claimed to know him and who asked him to buy them some drinks. Langangne refused, which l

>he was accosted by two young men with cheeks painted with makeup, who claimed to know him and who asked him to buy them some drinks. Langangne refused, which led the two men to launch a series of insults at him. >As an employee within the Ministry of Finance, Langangne seemed to expect that the streets were in some ways “his.” Ross' reaction is quite bizarre. If a woman wrote a letter complaining about being catcalled and verbally abused in public, would you accuse her of "expecting that the streets are in some way hers"?

colanderman 7y ago
Ya I don't understand the author's thesis either. Is he trying to claim that the aggressive/invasive "public sex" culture depicted is just a different urban culture that is perfectly acceptable and valid but for some privileged males' self-centered ideas? Like, "suck it up dude, you're in gropingville now, get woke and deal with it"? Maybe the author is going for some sort of meta thing. Like, "let's apply feminist theory reductio ad absurdum to show that groping is OK!" If he is, I'm not smart enough to understand it.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  You got it. The flâneur is knowingly intruding into the space of the street workers, but bringing his bourgeoise morality with him. He also says (without evidence) that the complainant is likely a customer of the male prostitutes rather than an observer, who happens to have had a bad encounter. I really don't know where he gets this from.
  - colanderman 7y ago
    > The flâneur is knowingly intruding into the space of the street workers, but bringing his bourgeoise morality with him. Right. I think it's the implication that not wanting to be groped in public is somehow unique to the morality of privileged males that confuses me. It's as if he's trying to make a point about hypocrisy but doesn't follow it up.
    - yabadabadoes 7y ago
      > but doesn't follow it up The whole article is such follow up including the outrage of privileged women.. The claim is that a flâneur may be trying to witness outrages to their norms between people of a lower social class and may have been outraged by virtually anything if it was directed at them, so it is hard to determine what precisely occurred from their testimony.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    His evidence is quoted directly from the letter where the letter writer says the men who accosted him might have confused him with someone they knew. It’s as good as analysis of a single stand-alone 1850s letter gets. That is to say, it’s a narrative based on a massive string of assumptions and contextual clues.
    - ComputerGuru 7y ago
      That’s not what the quote said. It was “that he might have something in common with a friend or brother of the crowd,” which I took to mean that “they thought he might share their sexual proclivities.”
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      Well that isn't evidence, that can barely be called conjecture. If it had been buttressed with references to other contemporary documents (arrest records, diary entries etc) it would have some weight.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        Hence my second paragraph?
- ianai 7y ago
  That piece is an excellent example that sometimes meaning is lost in too flowery language. I genuinely don’t know what he was trying to get across. I’m also not interested.p in blather.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
Ross is a Jew. That’s all you need to know.

colanderman 7y ago

Ya I don't understand the author's thesis either. Is he trying to claim that the aggressive/invasive "public sex" culture depicted is just a different urban culture that is perfectly acceptable and valid but for some privileged males' self-centered ideas? Like, "suck it up dude, you're in gropingville now, get woke and deal with it"? Maybe the author is going for some sort of meta thing. Like, "let's apply feminist theory reductio ad absurdum to show that groping is OK!" If he is, I'm not smart enough to understand it.

angry_octet 7y ago
You got it. The flâneur is knowingly intruding into the space of the street workers, but bringing his bourgeoise morality with him. He also says (without evidence) that the complainant is likely a customer of the male prostitutes rather than an observer, who happens to have had a bad encounter. I really don't know where he gets this from.
- colanderman 7y ago
  > The flâneur is knowingly intruding into the space of the street workers, but bringing his bourgeoise morality with him. Right. I think it's the implication that not wanting to be groped in public is somehow unique to the morality of privileged males that confuses me. It's as if he's trying to make a point about hypocrisy but doesn't follow it up.
  - yabadabadoes 7y ago
    > but doesn't follow it up The whole article is such follow up including the outrage of privileged women.. The claim is that a flâneur may be trying to witness outrages to their norms between people of a lower social class and may have been outraged by virtually anything if it was directed at them, so it is hard to determine what precisely occurred from their testimony.
- zaroth 7y ago
  His evidence is quoted directly from the letter where the letter writer says the men who accosted him might have confused him with someone they knew. It’s as good as analysis of a single stand-alone 1850s letter gets. That is to say, it’s a narrative based on a massive string of assumptions and contextual clues.
  - ComputerGuru 7y ago
    That’s not what the quote said. It was “that he might have something in common with a friend or brother of the crowd,” which I took to mean that “they thought he might share their sexual proclivities.”
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    Well that isn't evidence, that can barely be called conjecture. If it had been buttressed with references to other contemporary documents (arrest records, diary entries etc) it would have some weight.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Hence my second paragraph?
ianai 7y ago
That piece is an excellent example that sometimes meaning is lost in too flowery language. I genuinely don’t know what he was trying to get across. I’m also not interested.p in blather.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

Ross is a Jew. That’s all you need to know.