Talk:Anti-Flirt Club

Comment

• After taking a close look at the young gels in the picture, I really don't think they had too much to worry about. Except maybe from gentlemen, who having imbibed too much alcohol, lacked their normal discretion. RMHED (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You, young man, are quite clearly a slick, dandified cake eater - and more than likely a glossy lounge lizard. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Compliments will get you nowhere M'lady, now stop your outrageous flirting, Miss Reighly would not approve. RMHED (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, that both, to cease this rediculous flirting.--98.183.183.210 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Anti-Flirt club President winking at us? Isn't that against their rules? Or is she missing an eye, in addition to being hideously ugly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.64.114 (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Query

Just out of curiosity, how much of the information in this article is actually true? --Elonka 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charming study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion, you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the poster immediately above. The Shorpy reference has a comment that points to an article in "The Post, Feb 28, 1923" (Washington Post?). The picture I uploaded came from the Library of Congress. Notability has not been established yet, but there are signs that sources may exist. Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this article will survive. She is mentioned in a couple of websites (saying almost identical things), but it seems to me likely that one would need to violate WP:NOR to verify this woman's notability if not her existence. One is also mildly suspicious of a hoax, because of the mocking humor in it (an exceptionally ugly woman forming an anti-flirting club). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the typical response one would expect from a man, I would have expected better from a clergyman too, Deacon. Women of Wikipedia, rise up from your chains and "vote de Burgh." Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fleeting mentions" from oh, places like the Library of Congress.... Yeah, we need her on a "real" website. As for her looks, all I can say is the this is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. In the era before orthodonture, her teeth were crooked, and that makes her "ugly?" Good grief! There was life before Maxim, you know, and there are testimonials on Shorpy to people who knew her as an elderly woman who attested to her wit and energy. I wonder what would happen if anyone actually researched the cultural history of 1928? I wonder what would happen if anyone around here got interested in education? Fewer cavils like this? Perhaps. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Was her movement satirical? The question is legitimate, but it seems to not be ironic. 1928 was a time of citizen committees for all sorts of reforms of public morals. Alice Reighly lived in a wealthy part of Washington, DC. She would get a college education and professional training. So, was she banding together with her socialite friends and making a witty but serious movement about how men in motorcars were becoming a pest? If one looks at silent films from the era, one sees the motorcar as something akin to a license to snag, and the problem of boys in cars making catcalls goes well into the 1950's. When a technology is new, it draws such citizen protests that later turn into laws. This is a year before the crash, at the height of the "roar" in the roaring 20's. Given the evidence from the LOC for the provenance of the photograph, the contemporary autograph of the rules of the group, verification is solid. Significance may not be -- that's for a wider audience to consider -- but "is it true" is the question of someone either too lazy to read the article itself or to check the sources given. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Utgard, teeth weren't that bad back then. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite convinced that Miss Reilly was an upstanding and worthy member of Washington society - who was making a admirable stand on behalf of her community and sisters. Only Americans have this carniverous pre-occupation with teeth, which is why they all look alike in the dark. Naturally, I myself have quite perfect teeth Image:CdeB2.jpg, but had I not, as a member of the British aristocracy I would have left them to remain as the good Lord intended. "Au natural" is always best.Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And there was me thinking it was mainly warfare that killed off all those aristocratic families. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

As this article is more about the Anti flirt club than about Ms Reighly, I would like to suggest that the article be renamed accordingly, with perhaps a redirect from Alice Reighly? However I'm concerned that there may be an element of the fake about this, we are currently relying on sources quoted in some sort of blog so I've checked with the Washington Post archive and while I wasn't able to access the Feb 28, 1923 issue I got zero hits for a search on "anti flirt club". Of course its possible that the post archive is as yet incomplete or not fully indexed, does anyone have access to a microfiche copy of its archive? Also I don't know American papers of the 30s well enough to know if the Post then necessarily meant the Washington Post... PS I searched for the 1923 date referred to in the article, not sure where the 1928 angle came from. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If more sources can be located, I would support a move to Anti-Flirt Club. If not, or in the meantime, I recommend userfying this in the creator's userspace. The account Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs) seems to be mostly a joke account (check the history of the userpage[1]), which adds further suspicion to the basis of this article. I also agree that we should not be using comments in blog posts as sources. A Washington Post article may or may not exist, but other messages are clearly contradictory. One says she was married, another says she wasn't, etc. Bottom line, if Catherine de Burgh wants to be having a bit of fun with the encyclopedia, that's fine, but keep it on a userpage. Please don't muck around with article space. --Elonka 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no , no if you people are so ignorant of your own (admiteddly small) heritage then it is up to me a child of the British Empire to improve your knowledge. Miss Reighly is an important, if little known, figure in the history of American suffrage, right up there with poor dear Alva (a very late and close friend) and don't refer to me as a joke dear, not when it's you wearing the evening jewelery with a daytime jacket and hairstyle. Learn and appreciate your heritage my dear. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very funny Giano.[2] Now, come up with sources please, or userfy this. --Elonka 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Catherine a joke? We must perish the thought! I insist she be treated in the manner in which she demanded! The Great Lady asked me to comment on the poor Miss Reighly... hmmm, with such an unfortunate face, I can only recommend she wear an extremely large hat. - Epousesquecido (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the executor of the Lady's will - or god forbid, one of her stalkers! - should happen to peruse her contributions and maybe even improve on them, Google News and Google Books will surely prove invaluable. --NE2 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions between sources

There are serious problems with the dates and other details appearing in this article. The blog which was used as the only source when this article was written is contradicted by the book references added later. Pcap ping 10:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do is use one's editorial judgment, prioritize the sources (obviously the book is more reliable than the blog) and edit the article accordingly. It's a shame the references aren't visible on google books on the Peacemakers one (and my library doesn't have this book) ... as the assertion about the date in it might be referenced to another work (certainly the club is in ref no. 25). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're not actually in contradiction. In the original, we were talking about one founder and the Washington chapter of the Anti-Flirt League, which may indeed have had the origin date given. This would be different from the first Anti-Flirt League. I.e. they can both be correct, but the original captioning of the photograph appears to be contemporary, so its date should be treated as primary sources. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Results of a Google Scholar search

1. “A Pacifist Response to Social Violence,” McGilvary Journal of Theology, Payap University Faculty of Theology, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Translated by Prof. Prakai. (April 1999), pp23-30 (Thai) and 72-82 (English). [3]

Two historical examples of humanizing systemic pacifist responses to verbal violence against women are the Anti-Flirt Club and the Take Back the Night March. The Anti-Flirt Club was formed in Washington, D.C. in 1920. It was an organization of female office workers determined to "combat street harassment of women."

This passage has a footnote that resolves to the following book:

Dolores Hayden, Redesigning the American Dream, New York, Norton and Co. 1984.

2. Cheris Kramarae, Review: Beyond Sexist Language, The Women's Review of Books, Vol. 2, No. 12 (Sep., 1985), pp. 15-17.

A related issue which also needs attention is street hassling of women and members of minority groups, an ancient problem discussed by nineteenth-century feminists (who traded advice in their journals about how to deal with it), by Washington, DC office workers who in the 1920s formed an Anti-Flirt Club to combat it, and by contemporary writers who point out that street hassling is a way to remind women of men's authority in public places.

The book reviewed in this passage seems to be:

Francine Frank and Frank Anshen, Linguistic Treatment of the Sexes, New York, SUNY Press 1983.

3. Dolores Hayden, Domesticating Urban Space, in: The Sustainable Urban Development Reader.

A political program to overcome the "thereness" of women and win all female and male citizens, and their children, access to safe, public urban spaces requires that the presence of women (and their children) in public space be established as a political right; and that gender steretypes be eliminated from architecture, urban design, and graphic design in public space. Such a political program [...] would link the campaigns of the anti-flirt club of the 1920s to the "Take Back the Night" marches of the 1970s.

(There might be more in this article; I have only partial access via Google Books. There are no footnotes for this passage.) --Hans Adler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1920/1923

The distinction is odd. Above, I argue that it's possible that the club got founded in 1920 but that the DC club was 1923. However, it's also possible that the club founded in DC in 1920 but didn't receive coverage or convene or become active in the public sphere until '23. All of the contemporary newspaper coverage seems to be 1923. The language employed in the "advice" from the club points indistinctly. "Lounge lizard" and "cake eater" were popular slang (see "Among those Present," starring Harold Lloyd, 1923, for an exactly contemporary usage of "lounge lizard" and "cake eater" on title cards (avail. "The Harold Lloyd Collection, vol. 3")) in '23, but both could easily have been current 3 years earlier. What seems most likely is that the club didn't make a public splash until their protest in '23. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The other explanation is that "in 1920s", or even "in the 1920s", which is used in some of our sources, was erroneously transformed to "in 1920". In that case the mystery can be solved by getting "Redesigning the American Dream" from a library (see previous section). Or perhaps someone wants to invest $4 to consult the Washington Post article. (Asking Dolores Hayden by email is yet another option.)

While we don't know what's going on, it might be best to say "in the early 1920s", which is correct either way. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. I didn't want to suggest the familiar "20's" to "20" mistake, but I've seen "scholars" do much, much worse, so journalists would be positively excused. It was amusing, though, to see this article the very day I was watching Harold Lloyd and seeing "cake eater" and "lounge lizard" appear in title cards (and "lounge lizard" meaning "man who hangs out in the lounge, rather than doing something useful" rather than what we now take it as, "man who goes to lounges in hotels, hoping to pick up drunken women"). Utgard Loki (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag!

I agree with the Deacon (had a grandfather named "Deacon"... not Jones): tags don't serve anyone, here. This is an obscure subject that should be a bit of a dead end, unless one is going to have an OR-ish "Feminist movements of the second wave" sort of article. In general, the putative function of procedural tags (orphan, no references, etc.) is to flag an article for helpers to come dashing in or to flag administrators to come and bomb an article. There is nothing inherently wrong with that process flagging, but, um, aren't there categories? Aren't categories easier to search through, easier to clear? Aren't they also more modest, less of an eye sore, and less of a dissuasion to the reader? So, yeah, even a process tag is probably a stupid thing to do on an article that has been vetted. This one has been. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is based

Based 185.53.196.123 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Everything is biased. The question here is how is it biased. How can the article be improved? Adakiko (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

They said "based", not "biased". Evidently they approve of the Anti-Flirt Club's mission. Zacwill (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)