We’re all familiar with the video of the woman walking for 10 hours in New York City cataloguing the harassment she received. Obviously MRAs, misogynists were quite upset at this video and made attempts to misrepresent it.

An “anarcho”-capitalist Josh Cardosi, made a response to the video where he essentially claims that he can disprove the video. Or at the very least he can demonstrate that the video was being dishonest. In his attempt to do so he makes a few illogical statements, some of which resort to typical misogynist thinking and behavior. After having watched it I made nine points which entirely refute the overall claim of the video, those being that it was not harassment and it wasn’t that bad.

1. He’s saying it should have been more if it was a problem, false.

2. He says it’s not that bad, according to the person who was not harassed. His idea of what harassment is not the same as those who are being harassed. He’s saying if it doesn’t bother him it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) bother the women. False, it occurs in an entirely different context.

3. These statements were not intended as “compliments” or being polite, they were intended to grab attention. I think you’ll find they wouldn’t have done that with less attractive women. He’s also implying that if they’re intended to be friendly they would be doing that with everyone else. Every walked in NYC? They’re not that friendly.

4. He claims without any way of demonstrating it; that her speaking to the guy who followed her was lead on causing him to stay. Her words did display disinterest, so he should have left anyway. This is victim blaming, he’s essentially saying she asked for it by negatively engaging.

5. He says if this is harassment then what would feminists classify salesmen? Well they’d classify it as selling something, a sales pitch, which isn’t the same is hitting on someone which is sexual in nature.

6. He falsely assumes that the 100+ incidents that were not placed in the video must have been less than the ones displayed. They were probably equal to them. He’s presupposing they’re not harassment and implying they must therefore not be harassment or that the incidents didn’t happen at all.

7. He follows up by saying the woman was harassed 10 minutes in 10 hours or 1/60th of the time so it’s not that much. Then he uses various ways of expressing it to make it look as minimal as possible. How about someone pick a fight with him for a minute every hour and then say that it’s “nothing”. He’s saying it’s not a lot so therefore it’s nothing.

8. In a ridiculous non-sequitur he goes on about statics regards to suicide which has nothing to do with street harassment. This is a further attempt to claim that the harassment she suffered was nothing or somehow irrelevant in comparison.

9. Finally he ends with complete ignorance comparing male-to-female suicide statics as though it’s somehow relevant when it’s not. His claim is that women have a privilege of being able to get affection on command. He ignores the fact that they don’t want this attention. Clearly he can’t tell the difference between someone caring about a person and someone just hitting on them with no intention other than sexual conduct.

This video demonstrates quite vividly the complete disconnection that misogynists have with the reality of what it is to be harassed as a woman.