Tag: Misogyny

  • Those sausage wallets

    Clementine Ford has found a secret Facebook group called Blokes advice. She’s been sharing some of their (cough) advice.

    This is another charming post that allegedly comes from the Blokes Advice page. All jokes though, right guys? Probably the only reason bitches like me get angry about this shit is because we’re so ugly :(

    I personally I would like to say, all woman are pigs and if it weren’t for their vaginas, assholes, mouths and cooking a and cleaning skills that they are born with. There would be no need to the woman kind. I personally feel dirty just being around these sausage wallets. They should be a rule they can’t come with in a meter radius of they aren’t performing sexual acts upon us

    That’s women all right – 3 useful holes and innate cooking/cleaning skills. I say why bother? Just get a slab of liver and a Roomba, and go out to eat.

  • Only 22?

    If only we could have the discussion without misogynist or racist or homophobic or xenophobic slurs. If only.

    Like 6.5 hours worth on Monday night:

    2016_07_19 MelaniaSexism r3 LM

  • Kitty kitty kitty

    So Donald Trump called Ted Cruz a pussy at a New Hampshire rally Monday night.

    Oh but he didn’t really call him that, he just quoted someone else calling him that. Heeheehawhaw.

    A pussy for what? For not shouting “Fuck yes!” when asked if he thought waterboarding was the best thing ever.

  • Guest post: How do we now take care of the tyranny of misogyny?

    Guest post by Tasneem Khalil, originally on Facebook and re-posted here with Tasneem’s permission.

    “[White] Swedish women are whores.” – group of South Asian men (speaking Urdu), watching a blonde woman get off the bus (in Malmö).

    “If you are not a whore, why do you need to cover your head!” – group of white men (speaking Swedish), watching a hijabi woman playing with her child in a park (in Örebro).

    “… this little whore.” – Swedish politician, referring to a woman (in Stockholm).

    “There is a difference between [dressing like a whore] and dressing like a respectable woman… Islam will guide you in protecting yourself from sexual violence [by dressing up properly].” – a psychologist, talking to a survivor of sexual molestation (in her childhood).

    “This whore will not wear saree to uphold Bengali culture…” – Bengali man (living in Sweden), referring to his Bengali wife.

    he he ho ho… this whore is a good-for-nothing…” – Bulgarian man (living in Sweden), referring to his Japanese wife.

    In a men’s world, there are so many doors to whorehood for women: taking the bus; wearing hijab; surviving sexual molestation; not wearing saree; becoming the butt of husband’s joke etc. etc. Now that the events in Germany are making headlines, we will hear a lot about men’s violence against women. Now, people who suggest all white men are veritable feminists, should google and find out more about Julien Blanc; or, maybe find out more about the rape apologies and misogyny propagated by such luminaries as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Long story short: misogyny knows no culture, no class, no ideology, no geography. However, there is no denying that there are cultures in which violence against women is an everyday ritual. There are cultures, societies, institutions, families… where men are still treated as gods and masters, in whose service women remain engaged and enslaved. In some parts of our world, we took care of the tyranny of religion by building secular societies. How do we now take care of the tyranny of misogyny and topple the violent man-gods who occupy our streets and homes? By building feminist societies – right?

  • Model arguments

    I was going to leave it there, but then I clicked on the “more comments” button and there are so many that are so horrific I’m going to add a few more. Pink News on Facebook flagging up its own story on something Germaine Greer said about trans women.

    Scott Sherman Cocker spaniel? I never thought she was as pretty as a dog, nor as kind are loyal. Will somebody please tell this irrelevant cunt to shut up

    Hellen Back Lets have Mz Greer put to sleep shall we.

    Lucinda Ferguson miserable cow , getting paid for being miserable and stupid

    Nicholas Marshall
    to be fair.. she does look like a dog… woof woof

    Kevin Oliver I’ve said it before. She was worth listening to 50 years ago. Now she has nothing to say and spends far too much time saying it. She’s little more than a geriatric Katie Hopkins.

    Christina Engela …she could call herself a ‘bitch’. She should.

    Darren Lee Layton Hurry up and die you wretched waste of oxygen and space.

    Huw Williams you could also call yourself an ugly cunt who talks shite

    Dave Edwards
    What a foul, bitter old hag!!!!!

    Don Joiner She will say anything about anything as long as she sees her name in the press Tired worn out old HAG

    Mikey Mcmahon Sure you can… and I can call you a sad old cunt, but only I’d be right!

    And more of the same, and then it devolves into mostly one-word blurts – bitch! hag! cunt!

    Because these guys are all so very progressive.

  • “She looks like a flea ridden old bitch anyway!”

    One thing about the peculiar, fraught, often venomous politics of trans activism – sometimes it just looks like nothing but a “progressive” excuse for vomiting out torrents of misogynist abuse just like the horribly familiar trolls who haunt our blog comments and Twitter feeds.

    An example: a public Facebook post by Pink News yesterday linking to a Pink News story on Germaine Greer:

    She compared trans women to claiming you’re a dog.

    Germaine Greer on trans women: I could call myself a Cocker Spaniel
    Feminist author Germaine Greer has continued to defend her anti-trans…

    There are 223 comments as of this moment. Many of them are indistinguishable from bog-standard misogynist abuse.

    Mikey Mcmahon I’d be happy to treat her like one in any case. The sick old dog needs putting down.

    Steven Powell If Germaine Greer thinks that having a fully functioning vagina is what defines a woman, she is absolutely not a feminist.

    Donn Spanninga Steenkist But Bitch, you can claim you are a cocker spaniel but you will never ever feel like one….though I DO think you are a dog….

    Dave Basora May want to rethink that. Dogs are mans best friend. Is she?

    Donn Spanninga Steenkist True!! Ok….errrmmm…. I think she’s a cunt!! That better??

    August Phoenix The old bitch must be really craving publicity to come out with such inane comments.
    Problem is she was out of touch by the 80s and can’t handle that
    Go back home and raise kangaroos, they might want to listen to you.
    Of more concern is the bbc getting more and more anti lgbt. Ought to be made a pay as you go channel. Then it might have to face reality instead of its pathetic line up of programmes.

    Jodie Martin She’d be closer if she called herself a c**t! You can convert to Judaism and it would take more than a fur coat to trans into a dog. Is she out of her fucking mind?

    Donn Spanninga Steenkist It’s menopause lol!!

    Christiaan De Wet Cocker spaniel = bitch? Lol, that seems to be what i want to call someone that is so closed minded.

    Nicky Hann Shes just an old ignorant women, where lgbt in her decades were prosecuted and not talked about.

    Michael Bonham Carter Ignore her. Just as we all do. A pointless women that has only ever lived in world that all goes on in her own head.

    Gabby Nowten she could call herself a cocker spaniel but she would be better off calling herself what everyone else does

    Matthew Thatcher Well she is a dog and a c*nt but who cares, at one point thought she was a drag queen !!!

    Nico De Bruin Freud would have something to say. COCKer Spaniel? A touch of penis envy perhaps?

    Sissi NorthQueen This hideous b***h would pale and cry in front of some incredibly beautiful and xxtimes more feminine than herself transwomen and I like the “political” statement of men who want to quit the ranks of their “look-at-my-dick” peers…

    Owain Pritchard Well. She would be welcome to call herself a Cocker Spaniel. After all, she looks like a flea ridden old bitch anyway!

    That’s just from the first 50.

    Imagine Jesse Jackson said what Greer said. Do you suppose people would post flamingly racist comments on Pink News’s wall in response? I don’t know the answer, because it’s a hypothetical, but I sure as hell doubt it. I don’t recall seeing any racist attacks on Bill Cosby as the news started to come out – and you’d think actual rape would be quite a lot more serious and anger-inducing than having the wrong opinion on trans women is.

    But somehow loathing of women becomes instantly respectable if she has the wrong opinion on trans women.

    I wonder why that is…

  • A picture to say

    Hmm. Tim Roberts isn’t such a good poster boy for freedom of Twitter after all.

    Near the top of his Twitter timeline right now:

    Tim-A-Roberts ‏@Tim_A_Roberts 1 hour ago
    Oh – for the obsessed fans out there – a picture to say – I’m sorry

    Embedded image permalink

    But remember – in the UK, “cunt” is in no way a misogynist epithet.

  • Guest post: And I always think to myself, why is that accepted?

    Guest post by Josh the SpokesGay

    I’ve got something to say about ageism and Madonna. I’m looking at you, my feminist friends. For the moment, please put aside how much you totally hate her (or think she can do no wrong) and consider this on its own.

    Madonna is right when she complains about sexist ageism in the Rolling Stone article. Full stop. She’s right. And most of you agree with that, even though many of you couldn’t get past the ham-handed way she said it.

    “No one would dare to say a degrading remark about being black or dare to say a degrading remark on Instagram about someone being gay,” Madonna continues. “But my age – anybody and everybody would say something degrading to me. And I always think to myself, why is that accepted? What’s the difference between that and racism, or any discrimination? They’re judging me by my age. I don’t understand. I’m trying to get my head around it. Because women, generally, when they reach a certain age, have accepted that they’re not allowed to behave a certain way. But I don’t follow the rules. I never did, and I’m not going to start.”

    Ham-handed, yes. Lots of people would, in fact, say something degrading about being black or gay. But what I’m pretty confident Madonna is getting at (spare me the charge of trying to massage her words because I’m just a huge fan; boring) is that the kind of people in polite society who would, in fact, never dare to criticize a performer for being black or gay will do so on the basis of that performer being a woman. That is a plain fact. I’ve been noticing this for years and commenting on it for years, often here at Butterflies and Wheels.

    Look. Madonna is an egotist. Stipulated. She’s narcissistic. Stipulated. She’s a rich white woman, probably the most famous woman in the world. She ain’t hurting. She’s also a person and a woman in a misogynist culture; she doesn’t just “not suffer” from that just because she’s super rich. People can be lots of different things at the same time, which I know you know even though some of my friends gloss right over that.

    Madonna has also made a career out of appropriating styles and cultures that wouldn’t get anything but scorn if they weren’t adopted by a pretty white woman. There’s a whole lot of behavior Madonna should rightly be taken to task for.

    Stipulated. OK? Madonna is not the oppressed-est woman to walk the face of the earth.

    Like most privileged white people, she’s too blasé about how she characterizes stigma and discrimination. I get it. It’s tone-deaf, and sometimes worse. No, we’re NOT past racial discrimination, or trans discrimination, or any of the plethora of oppressions. I also get it because I’ve said those things: “You wouldn’t dare be so casual about that shit if we were talking about gay people.” It’s hard to do that without sounding like (or giving support to the idea that) you think whatever flak you’re getting pales in comparison to racist/homophobic/transphobic abuse.

    I know. It is problematic. I know why it pisses folks off to hear stuff like this. People, especially rich famous people, need to do a whole lot better about being aware of where they’re situated as compared to the “nobodies.”

    But I’ve watched a bunch of my friends basically throw a fit over what Madonna said. Reams of digital ink spilled about how dumb she is, how obnoxious, how she must think she’s the most downtrodden woman on earth. Here’s the important part–this is all said while ignoring the obvious. Self-centered as she is, it’s highly unlikely that she thinks, on balance, that she’s worse off than your average workaday gay person, or person of color. And even if she did, it’s remarkable that no one I noticed complaining even approached acknowledging what they know to be true: It IS normalized to talk this way about women in a way it’s becoming socially unacceptable to talk with regard to other minority groups.

    Come the fuck on. I know you know this.

    The reality is that misogyny, from the most “mild” sexism to the most virulent rape threats, is totally normalized in our public conversation. In a way that other oppressions aren’t. In polite society you’re supposed to at least pay lip service to the idea that it’s out of bounds to criticize someone for being black qua black, gay qua gay, etc. Yeah, that ain’t good enough by a country mile, and it papers over real bigotry. Lip-service liberalism—“I think everyone should be treated equally!”—is a piss poor substitute for real, comprehensive solutions to our problems of bigotry. I know that. I’m not holding it up in order to claim, “therefore people of color have it better.” Please take that on board before you rush to tell me I’m ignoring intersectionality. But there is a qualitative difference with sexism. It’s so normalized that people you really think know better don’t even notice it.

    Truth: You don’t even have to pay lip service to the idea that it’s not cool to tell a woman to put her sexuality away at a certain age. Or that she’s embarrassing. Or desperate. Or [insert whatever degrading thing you like because it’s OK cuz everyone knows it’s “inappropriate” to do these things as an older woman]. The word “feminist” is a goddamn dirty word. It is most certainly NOT required to pretend you give a shit about women as people. It just ain’t. You get to do that with impunity.

    It’s so normalized that many of you, people I respect and am happy to fight alongside with, couldn’t seem to acknowledge it going on right in front of you. Because rich spoiled Madonna must think she has it so hard, so fuck her, amiright?

    By making that the only conversation in reaction to her statement (or to Patricia Arquette’s, who made similarly sloppy remarks recently), you’re enacting it. I’ve seen so many of you all stand up and call foul when the slut-shaming crap gets hurled at younger performers like Beyoncé or Miley Cyrus. Yet it doesn’t seem to bother many even a little tiny bit when it gets thrown at an older woman.

    Perhaps it does, and I just never see it. But I’m a bit skeptical, you’ll forgive me, when I see my so many of you never say anything about the vicious, misogynist shit that gets hurled at Madonna simply because she’s 56 and she won’t put her drawers on. But lots of folks are super-ready to dismiss her entirely when she notes it because we all know Madonna’s merely and only a spoiled princess. What’s important, apparently, is making sure you communicate to the world how stupid and vapid you think she is, and that she cannot say anything truthful or noteworthy about the double-standard of sexual performance and age applied to men and women.

    I’m tired of it. Not because Madonna needs my help, but because she’s right, and I’m tired of otherwise informed people ignoring it. Or worse, participating in it. Some of you have taken to Twitter to talk about how Madonna is “embarrassing herself” merely because she showed off her ass and she’s 56. I’ve seen you do it. Even those of you who proclaim how sex-positive you are. Some of you who hail Beyoncé as the most empowerful groundbreaking-est best-est EVER feminist.

    I see you. Do you see you?

    And if it weren’t Madonna, it would be some other older woman, I’m sure. But I’ve been following her career for 30 years and she has been saying this all along. She was talking about double standards for women back in the goddamn 80s. She got called a narcissistic slut then, and she gets called a narcissistic slut now. It’s just as bad, perhaps worse, now that we’re all supposed to pretend we’re “post-feminist”.

    I’m not asking you to be a fan, or to think M’s brand of sexual performance is per se “liberating” or “feminist.” These are complicated questions. But I’m damned disappointed in so many people who throw in to trash her when she’s saying something you well know is true, and that you call out freely when it happens to a performer you don’t happen to dislike the way you dislike Madonna.

    She’s right. And you’re a hypocrite.

  • Behold the false dichotomy

    JT Eberhard sees a mistake and comes to the rescue:

    Elliot Rodger was mentally ill. That conversation needs to take place.

    Huh. One, how does JT know that? Two, that conversation already is taking place, to put it mildly.

    Ok so let’s read beyond the title.

    There is a debate going on as to whether or not Elliot Rodger, the man who recently went on a killing spree in California, was mentally ill or if he was sane and driven by sexism.

    No. That’s not the debate that’s going on. Hardly anyone is framing it as “either mentally ill or misogynist.” Also, the issue is not “driven by sexism” but “driven by misogyny” – intense, enraged hatred of women. What we see in Elliot Rodger along with far too many other men is beyond mere everyday sexism, which seems almost cozy in comparison, but inflamed rabid loathing of women as women.

    When this all went down, it struck me that Elliot Rodger was probably suffering from some form of mental illness.

    Whoa, how shrewd and percipient! Except that it struck everyone else in the population too, including people who know better than to take such snap judgments seriously. It’s not really worth mentioning that one’s first thought on hearing the news was “wo that dude was cray.” It’s certainly not worth treating it as a wise insight that should be followed up on.

    Then JT tells us of his good fortune in having a friend who has a friend who wrote an article in Time minimizing the role of misogyny. Yes indeed, what a piece of luck. This two-degrees-of-separation friend is one Chris Ferguson – probably no relation to my friend Craig Ferguson, who is my friend because I watch his Late Late Show occasionally. Chris Ferguson hits the right patronizingly dismissive note:

    Misogyny, in all forms, remains a significant problem for society. Women still don’t enjoy pay equity with men, and are underrepresented in core positions of power in business and politics. Violence toward women has thankfully dropped over the previous two decades, but remains intolerably high. The last election cycle brought us odd comments about “legitimate rape” and fights over women’s rights to contraception medical coverage. It’s not difficult to understand why women would perceive the deck being culturally stacked against them. That misogyny can, and certain does, spill over into violence in the case of (one hopes) a small percentage of men whose anger toward women is beyond control.

    Linking cultural misogyny to a specific mass shooting is more difficult, however.

    And so on. Take-away: don’t worry about it, laydeez. JT echoes the take-away.

    Like Jaclyn said, this does not mean that sexism is not bad and that it should not be discussed.  Anybody saying that is wrong.  But by treating Rodger as sane so we can attribute the fullness of his rampage to our ideological enemies, we are missing the chance to get at the root cause of the mass murder (according to the psychological experts on mass murder).

    Ahh yes, “our ideological enemies”; that’s what this is about. It’s about the same old shit – stop “dividing” the atheist “movement” laydeez, with your complaints about misogyny and harassment. Think of The Cause and shut up about it. We are all in this together and your concerns about misogyny and harassment don’t matter.

    Nope.

  • The land of denial

    I finally did as I have seen many people urge everyone to do, and took a look at When Women Refuse on tumblr. It’s not fun or placid reading. Be warned.

    Arthur Morgan III gets a life sentence for killing his 2-year-old daughter

    Arthur Morgan III killed his 2-year-old daughter by throwing her into a creek while strapped into a car seat weighed down with a tire jack. He did it to get back at his ex for breaking off her relationship with him.

    “It was because he wanted Imani and he couldn’t have her,” prosecutor Marc LeMieux said. “So he took away the one precious thing in her life.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/arthur-morgan-iii-life-sentence_n_5403246.html

    Principal murdered by husband

    Two weeks after my son started kindergarten, the dynamic, amazing principal of his school was murdered by her husband after she told him that she wanted a divorce: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2005/11/19/Flewellen-guilty-of-wife-s-murder/stories/200511190136.

    (more…)

  • They talked about modernity and tradition

    Soraya asks when we ask unpleasant truths in the wake of Elliot Rodger’s destruction.

    I watched the media’s erasure of Rodger’s hatred of women and the depressingly predictable narrative of the lone, mentally ill mass shooter disconnected from it. Computer-less, I occasionally checked news on my phone and, not wanting to derail the morning, I tweeted.

    image

    She tried to get on with a Saturday with her daughters, but she

    was quietly seething that the media was still not connecting the dots about male sexual entitlement, the hatred of women that men’s rights and PUA groups cultivate, the hegemonic masculinity that fuels a cruel, dangerous and corrupt gun culture. As women began to flood Twitter with this information the depressingly familiar #NotAllMen responses began. A woman on Twitter, in an effort to provide a space for women to describe what we live with, created #YesAllWomen. So I said very little and instead tweeted. 

    Meanwhile, when a buggy full of Mennonites went by, we talked about modernity and tradition. I did not say anything about my friend, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse who grew up in a Mennonite community and understood that the veneer of justice, peace and non-violence did not apply to her or her mother, who’d been raped by her father. She has built a community for herself and many others previously smothered in damaging silence. None of this was evident in the buggy or its occupants, out for a lovely ride on a lovely day. It was not part of people’s consciousness as they tried to peek through the windows from afar or guess the vintage of the vehicle.

    By noon I was having a loud and busy lunch with many relaxed people whose company I enjoy, who were saying the words “mass shooting,” but had never heard the term “aggrieved entitlement.” I could not explain that Rodger’s language and sentiments, while extreme, rippled through out media and women’s lives every single day. That women recognized in them and his actions the logical, sick efflorescence of the everyday culture Decoupling the actions of an isolated “madman” from this helps no one.

    Except that it makes sociable lunches easier, because people don’t like to hear that things are desperately fucked up.

    Complexity sucks for some people. I am frustrated with people willfully and destructively portraying mental illness and the hatred of women as mutually exclusive, binary, polarized and ranked. No one seems to care that a huge part of our issues treating mental illness is that it is feminized and that men, laboring with rigid gender norms, see admitting to this particular sickness as a sign of “female weakness.” These are marginalized issues, like women’s experiences.

    But she kept trying, through the afternoon.

    By dinner, I think, if Rodger was “just mentally ill,” what about all of the men who are using his language, trading in his fundamental ideas about deserving sex from women, and quietly believing that sexism and misogyny aren’t really all that bad? When someone suggests gender symmetry in violence I don’t have the energy to explain that there are 160 million missing women on the planet out loud.

    There is a huge labor of education ahead of us all. Huge.

  • Guest post by Antonia Bookbinder on the normalization of misogynist ideology

    I recall being a twenty-something woman and being tremendously attracted to one or another sexy, smart man. These men almost always friend-zoned me for being butch and sarcastic, saying how great it was to be friends with me because I wasn’t “really a girl” and whining about their far more conventionally feminine girlfriends. It hurt, a lot, and I eventually learned to avoid that particular sort of male “friend”. Somehow, though, I never ranted about how all men were evil or depraved or contemplated purchasing firearms to massacre popular students. This is mostly because I was never told that I had an inalienable right to male bodies. I was told instead that I should focus on enjoying life without a sexual relationship, that my sexual satisfaction or lack thereof was not the single most important fact of my existence, and that even good, fulfilling relationships were inevitably also complicated and painful.

    When we teach boys (explicitly and implicitly) that they are incomplete or inadequate unless they have access to a woman’s genitals, that sexual relationships can be had by following certain manipulative rules, and that compliance with gender norms is required for satisfying sexual relationships, we teach children to become rapists and murderers. This is not to excuse men who perpetrate violence of the Isla Vista sort, but it is worth examining where such perpetrators come from.

    Our collective failure to notice or address the prevalence of extremist misogynist ideology in mainstream culture creates more such men from today’s boys. Every time we hear and do not confront a child or youth repeating misogynist “humor”, and every time we avoid discussion of pick-up-artist ideas in our conversations about gender-related violence, we are each complicit in tomorrow’s Isla Vistas.

  • Meow mix

    Did you notice the shout-out to cat lovers in the ManBoobz post? I’ll replay it for you in case you didn’t.

    Men’s Rights blogger The Native Canadian put it this way:

    PTSD from being a feminist on the internet? Yeah I bet she wakes up screaming at night because of all the mean words! Must be hard going day to day with flash backs of your friends being called “femnazi’s” right in front of you! How ever do you handle life? Fucking disgraceful b****. Let’s see her tell that to someone who really knows what living with PTSD is like. …

    I’m sorry but I am totally shocked, I don’t know what else to say, other than, is there nothing sacred to these cat lovers?

    Commenters were surprised by that, but I wasn’t. We’ve seen the “women / feminists = cat people” trope before. Remember? I went back into the archive to refresh my memory. Remember? October 2012? (Gee this has been going on for a long time, hasn’t it?)

    Reap Paden is another Mencken, or even Hitchens

    I kid, I kid.

    But he tries!

    He drops in here with his totally cool angry atheist avatar and his rapier wit, and he puts me in my place.

    I apologize if someone has already made this point–

    Ophelia I think I can speak on behalf of at least a whole hell of a lot of people when I ask “When are you going to deflate your head and come down for a landing?” Some of the incredible things I have seen you post lately make me wonder if you have been eating too much cat food or something.

    Feminist cat food.

  • “We meant you no harm”

    The CBC reports a student union leader at the University of Ottawa, Anne-Marie Roy, was anonymously sent screenshots of a Facebook conversation about her among five male students who are also student leaders. It was an unpleasant conversation from her point of view.

    The online conversation — a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press — included references to sexual activities some of the five individuals wrote they would like to engage in with Roy, including oral and anal sex, as well as suggestions that she suffered from sexually transmitted diseases.

    “Someone punish her with their shaft,” wrote one of the individuals at one point. “I do believe that with my reputation I would destroy her,” wrote another.

    After confronting a member of the conversation in person, Roy said she received an emailed apology from all five men which emphasized that their comments were never actual threats against her.

    “While it doesn’t change the inadmissible nature of our comments, we wish to assure you we meant you no harm,” the apology, written in French, read.

    Ohhhhh you know what? Fuck you. The comments are the harm. They’re in writing.

    Roy decided she would bring it up at a Feb. 23 meeting of the student federation’s Board of Administration, which oversees the affairs of the student union.

    Her plan was to distribute copies of the conversation to the board’s members while asking the board to move a motion to “condemn” those who engaged in the discussion, two of whom were board members. The other three were involved with organizing campus events.

    After learning of Roy’s plan, four of the five individuals sent her a letter warning her that the conversation was a private one and that sharing it with others would amount to a violation of their rights.

    A violation of their rights! They threatened her to make her shut up about their conversation about her – their conversation about her that degraded her. Their rights. Great godalmighty.

    The one participant in the conversation who is not threatening legal action said the entire incident has been a huge learning experience.

    “There was some conversation with some pretty violent, like, some pretty demeaning words,” said Pat Marquis. “I didn’t say much in that conversation, but I didn’t stop it either.”

    Marquis was a vice-president in the student union until he resigned this weekend, reportedly after receiving hate mail and threats related to the conversation. He said he planned to meet with Roy to “discuss ways to move forward.”

    “There’s a lot of boys’ talk and locker room talk that can seem pretty normal at the time, but then when you actually look back at it, it can be offensive,” he said.

    “I would never say that kind of thing out in the public but when it was a private conversation I guess it slipped my mind that that’s really not acceptable.”

    It’s good that he learned, at least.

    He gave himself a helpful clue: he would never say that kind of thing out in the public. Well why not? Think about that for a minute and it might become clearer why it’s not acceptable in private either.

    In a statement issued on Saturday, the University of Ottawa said it was “appalled” by the online conversation which it said demonstrated attitudes about women and sexual aggression that had “no place on campus, or anywhere else.” It said it was working with Roy to develop “an appropriate response.”

    The entire incident has at least one observer saying it’s clear universities need to have a more open discussion about how students talk about each other, even in private.

    “I do think it’s a form of cyberbullying even though she wasn’t a direct recipient of those messages on Facebook,” said Wanda Cassidy, associate professor at Simon Fraser University who researches cyberbullying in schools and universities.

    “There needs to be a lot more conversation around those kinds of behaviour and comments that are made demeaning towards women.”

    The footprint that such comments can leave on the Internet should also make individuals think twice before sending demeaning or hurtful messages, she said.

    “Whereas 20 years ago those guys might have been out sitting around having a beer and talking in that way, it is quite different when you’re putting in print, because it’s there as a record.”

    Yes it is, and yes it is.

    Update:

    Another report says the students dropped their legal threats and resigned their posts as student representatives.

    Marquis, Larochelle, Giroux and Fournier-Simard were all elected student representatives who resigned from their posts over the weekend after a mounting outcry from their peers. Tremblay volunteered on occasion with the university’s Faculty of Arts student association but was not an elected member.

    The University of Ottawa said it was “appalled” at the conversation and is working with Roy on “an appropriate response.”

    After a brief conversation with the university’s president on Monday, Roy said the institution was considering a campus audit on issues related to student safety.

    Good. This shit isn’t ok.

  • More angry at women, more hyper-masculine in their beliefs and attitudes

    A study by David Lisak of U Mass Boston, Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence [pdf]. A significant point:

    There is also a set of newer myths about rape, myths that have been
    spawned by the new generation of victimization studies that have emerged since
    the 1980’s. These studies documented that rape was both far more prevalent than
    traditional crime surveys indicated, and that most rape victims did not report
    their victimization. These studies also clearly revealed that most rapes are not
    committed by strangers in ski masks, but rather by “acquaintances” or “nonstrangers.”

    These realizations led to the general adoption of new language and new
    categories of rape. Terms such as “acquaintance rape” and “date rape” emerged
    and took hold. Unfortunately, these new terms have created a new mythology
    about rape. The term “date rape,” which has become woven into the fabric of
    public discourse about sexual violence, carries with it the connotation of “rape
    lite.” Victims of date rape are typically viewed as less harmed than victims of stranger rape; and “date rapists” are typically viewed as less serious offenders, and frankly less culpable than stranger rapists. Date rape is often viewed more in
    traditionally civil than in traditionally criminal terms: as an unfortunate
    encounter in which the two parties share culpability because of too much alcohol
    and too little clear communication.

    One of the consequences of this new mythology of date rape is that there
    has been very little, if any, cross-communication between the study of date rape –
    a literature typically based in, and focused on college campuses – and the longestablished literature on sex offenders and sexual predators. In fact, in the author’s personal experience, there is typically considerable resistance within
    civilian universities to the use of the term “sex offender” when referring to the
    students who perpetrate acts of sexual violence on campuses. This resistance is
    one of the legacies of the term, “date rape,” and it has served to obscure one of the
    unpleasant facts about sexual violence in the college environment: that just as in the larger community, the majority of this violence is committed by predatory individuals who tend to be serial and multi-faceted offenders.

    That’s a disturbing fact. I think I’d thought of it in just the mistaken way Lisak points out: as different from stranger rape, and thus more opportunistic than something done by predatory individuals. The latter version is an unpleasant thought.

    And then there’s the motivation…’

    Many of the motivational factors that were identified in incarcerated
    rapists have been shown to apply equally to undetected rapists. When compared
    to men who do not rape, these undetected rapists are measurably more angry at
    women, more motivated by the need to dominate and control women, more impulsive and disinhibited in their behavior, more hyper-masculine in their beliefs and attitudes, less empathic and more antisocial.

    I recognize the type.

  • Outrage that uppity girls

    Ally Fogg reviews Michael Kimmel’s new book at Comment is Free.

    When one looks at the horrific abuse meted out to feminist campaigners such as Caroline Criado-Perez for having the temerity to ask that a woman should feature on British banknotes, to Laura Bates for fighting back against street harassment and everyday sexism, or to Anita Sarkeesian for highlighting sexist tropes in video games, it is hard to see it as anything but aggrieved entitlement. The hate campaigns seem firmly rooted in outrage that uppity girls should be intruding upon men’s inalienable right to behave how they like, harass who they want, control culture as they wish and shape society in their own image. Like: “You’ll prise Lara Croft’s skimpy shorts from my cold, dead hands.”

    It is easy, and indeed essential, to condemn such misogynistic hate campaigns. However if those attitudes are at least partially stoked by very real and profound economic and social changes that have left some men feeling disempowered, marginalised, maligned and neglected, is it enough to simply demand that they suck it up and deal with it? I’m not sure.

    No, but that’s not the question. The question is, is it still reasonable to demand that they stop bullying women regardless? I am sure. Yes it is. Whatever the sources and roots and origins of your rage, they don’t entitle you to persecute other people. Period. That’s true by definition. Persecution is by definition not justified.

    The gender script for women has been largely torn up – a young girl has unprecedented freedom to grow into a doctor or a nurse, a soldier or a solicitor and/or a wife and mother while men, to a large extent, are stuck with a script for a role that barely exists. To be a real man, our culture still insists, is to be the protector and provider within a society that no longer guarantees to deliver that opportunity, and where male protector-providers are not entirely necessary. It is not much of a stretch to assume that this causes immense stress and psychological conflict, which is sometimes directed inward in despair and depression, sometimes outward in anger and violence.

    Hang on. A young girl has unprecedented freedom to grow into a doctor or a nurse, a soldier or a solicitor and/or a wife and mother, but she is still very likely to be punished and bullied for doing so. That gender script hasn’t been torn up at all, in fact it’s been turned into a whole Library of Congress worth of scripts.

  • Your garden variety sexist communications

    Caroline Criado-Perez gave a talk at the Women’s Aid conference; she talked about cyber harassment.

    I’d like to start off by giving you a bit of background into what led up to the harassment I received for over two weeks in July and August, because I think it’s important to see how little it takes to provoke this kind of abuse – it’s important to face up to how much of a problem we still have with widespread misogyny against any woman who dares to use her voice in public.

    I don’t think of it as “still” – I think of it as new. That’s because I’m a lot older than Criado-Perez, so I didn’t grow up with the internet, so I remember a time when there was no real way for misogynists to call women bitches and cunts in a public, archivable way. Norman Mailer couldn’t go on the Dick Cavett show and call feminists bitches and cunts, because he would simply have been bleeped. One of the many novelties the internet makes possible is noisy, repetitive, unabashed misogyny and harassment.

    So some of you may have heard of a campaign I ran from April to July this year, asking the Bank of England to review its decision to have an all-male line-up on banknotes. (Note to media, I really didn’t campaign for Jane Austen’s face on a banknote, please stop saying I did, thank you!) The campaign received quite a lot of media attention, and I spent much of my time rehearsing arguments about the damage a public culture saturated with white male faces does to the aspirations and achievements of women and young girls.

    She could have put that last bit better. It’s not the saturation with white male faces, it’s the lack of other kinds of faces. The point isn’t to say white males get out, it’s to say white males aren’t all there are.

    As a result of this media attention, throughout the campaign I had been on the receiving end of your garden variety sexist communications. The sort that call you a bitch, a cunt, that tell you to get back to the kitchen. The sort that tell you to shut up, stop whining, stop moaning – to get a life.

    Then the Bank of England made its decision, and the real harassment got going. She gives details; lots of details.

    One of the saddest things about the abuse I suffered, was the fact that it wasn’t just from men. Some women joined in on the act too – although the majority of the malicious communications I got from women were of the victim-blaming variety. Stop attention-seeking, you’re a media whore, a fame hag, bet you’re crying your way to the bank over this. If you were really bothered you would just keep quiet. You’re not silenced – look at you all over the airwaves. Why should we care about you, you’re not perfect, you’re no mother Teresa. And at its worst and most blatant: “you’re no victim”.

    Not even a professional one? They missed a trick there.

    The psychological fall-out is still unravelling. I feel like I’m walking around like a timer about to explode; I’m functioning at just under boiling point – and it takes so little to make me cry – or to make me scream.

    And I’m still being told not to feed the trolls.

    I can’t begin to tell you how much I hate that phrase. That phrase takes no account of the feelings of the victim – only of the feelings of a society that doesn’t care, that doesn’t want to hear it, that wants women to put up and shut up. It completely ignores the actions of the abuser, focusing only on the actions of the victim – because that’s what we do in this society. We police victims. We ask “why doesn’t she leave?” instead of asking “why doesn’t he stop?”

    Why doesn’t she just say “no thank you” to more wine? Why didn’t she go to the police? Why should we believe her? Why would any skeptic ever believe any report of harassing behavior? Why do you hate skepticism?

    Victims have to be allowed to stand up and shout back – they need to be allowed to ask for support, without being accused of attention-seeking. They need to be allowed to draw the attention of the world to what so many women go through on a daily basis, and make it front page news. Because, make no mistake. Not talking about this is not going to make abuse and misogyny go away. On the contrary, it will help it to thrive.

    So many women got in touch with me when the story broke to thank me for speaking out about it, for making it front page news for so long. They had been through the same, they said. And the police had not helped them. The police had told them to lock their accounts, to stop tweeting controversial things – in one case, the controversial thing being tweeted about was racism. A black woman was being told she could not tweet about racism, because there was nothing the police could do about the ensuing rape threats.

    Yep. If you don’t like being harassed, get off Twitter – that’s what we’re told. If you don’t like people ranting about wanting to kick you in the cunt, stop writing and talking in public. It’s easy. It’s simple. Just shut up, and the problem is solved.

    Except that that is the problem – women being bullied into shutting up is the problem. Women being bullied into shutting up can’t be the solution to the problem of women being bullied into shutting up.

     

     

  • In a strange, pathetic little niche

    One of the sectors of The Culture where under-representation of women (in all senses) is an issue, along with rage at efforts to rectify the under-representation, is gaming. Ernest Adams addresses the issue at Gamasutra.

    The topic of institutionalized misogyny in game culture is finally getting the attention it deserves, and the situation is grim. Once again we embarrassed ourselves at the Electronic Entertainment Expo with a parade of booth babes and an Xbox One launch that featured a rape joke and not a single female protagonist among its launch titles. Try pointing this out to many industry executives and you’ll get a collective shrug. Try pointing it out in online gamer spaces and you get howls of outrage and a torrent of vile abuse from a small number of very angry men. The attacks get worse if the person who points it out happens to be a woman: death threats, threats of sexual violence, character assassination and cyberstalking are commonplace. Jennifer Hepler, a writer at BioWare, recently received explicit death threats… not to her but to her children, a new low.

    The haters are simply infuriated at the suggestion that games might be improved by making them more appealing to women, and they’re warning us that they’ll do something about it.

    No girls in the club house!

    So who is asking for a change, and what exactly are they asking for? I’m going to call them “progressive gamers,” for want of a better term; they’re both men and women. With respect to gender in games (the treatment of racial minorities or under-represented sexualities is a separate, but related issue), their requests are simple and few:

    1. More opportunities to play female protagonists in AAA titles.
    2. More female characters—especially protagonists—who are not hypersexualized and whose clothing is appropriate for their activity.
    3. More female characters portrayed as strong and competent people rather than victims, trophies, or sex objects.

    More female cooties, in other words.

    If you visit YouTube or the gamer message boards frequented by reactionary players, you encounter, again and again, the same set of arguments for not building any new games that the progressive players might like. I’ll summarize them here:

    • Dismissive: They’re only games; they’re not important, so it doesn’t matter if there aren’t many women or their portrayal of women is unrealistic.
    • Male chauvinist: Feminazis are pushing their way into the game industry with their political correctness, and they’re going to ruin games and (male) gaming culture.
    • Ignorant: Asking for female protagonists in games is a violation of game designers’ freedom of speech.
    • Misogynist“Wherever there are happy men there will always be a woman there to ruin it.” That’s about the mildest quote I could find.
    • Financial: Male players don’t like to play female characters, and they like to see the women in games eroticized. The game industry will lose a lot of money if it stops catering to those men.

    Ernest then provides actual information on the financial claim and finds it to be dead wrong. His conclusion is very heartening, because it applies to other sectors of The Culture too.

    By this point it should be clear that if the reactionary players leave in a huff, it won’t do us any real harm. Like all extremists, they wildly overestimate the number of people who agree with them, and the sales that they represent are too small a fraction of the overall numbers to worry about. They are noisy and obnoxious, but financially irrelevant. We don’t need the haters.

    The only companies in the industry that are at risk are ones whose business depends on selling games to these clowns. It’s kind of stupid to alienate a large audience in order to serve a small one, and as our markets continue to grow, they will end up in a strange, pathetic little niche like strip poker games.

    They are noisy and obnoxious, but otherwise irrelevant.

  • No, the system does not work

    It’s fashionable, this hobby of bullying women. Kelly Diels explores the fashion in Salon.

    When Rebecca Meredith took the stage in March at the Glasgow Ancients, an annual university debate tournament, she and her debate partner, Marlena Valles, were prepared for a little heckling. After all, Meredith is ranked the third top university debater in Europe in 2012 and Valles won best speaker in Scotland’s 2013 national championship, so between the two of them they’ve “beaten men in debates hundreds of times” and “can deal with heckles,” writes Meredith in the Huffington Post. But even before the two debaters started speaking, a cadre of men in the audience began to boo, continued to boo throughout the debate, shouted “Shame, woman!” and “analysed their sexual attractiveness.” When a woman judge intervened, reports Lucy Sheriff, the men called the judge “a frigid bitch.”

    That’s no good.

    There are resources for bullying that I wasn’t aware of.

    Encyclopedia Dramatica, a deliberately offensive wiki outlining the worldview and language of some of the people congregating in the forums and chat rooms of 4chan.org, defines “trolling” as “Internet Eugenics.” Trolling is designed to enrage and traumatize targets – especially women and minorities – so that they’ll go ahead and “leave the internet.”

    That’s no good.

    Online campaigns designed to punish particular people are called “lulz,” the phonetic version of the acronym “LOL,” meaning laugh out loud, which describes both the systematic process for chasing people off the Internet as well as the result (maximum amusement!). Lulz has “standard operating procedures” and the first of those procedures is trolling, or leaving a large volume of offensive comments on a person’s blog and tweeting hateful messages to them. Trolling is both a signal and a threat. Shut up and get off the Internet, is the message, or there will be further consequences – such as the publication of your personal details (called “doxing”) so you can be harassed not just online but by phone and at your home, followed by denial of service (dos) attacks on your website or, if you’ve really infuriated them, distributed denial of service attacks (Ddos) against your host provider (which will crash not just your site but thousands of other sites also hosted by those servers).

    To recap: 1) trolling, 2) doxing, 3) dos or Ddos attacks. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    And repeat they do. Set up only nine years ago, in 2004, Encyclopedia Dramatica contains hundreds of entries documenting past and future victims of a “lollercoaster.” Writer Melissa McEwan, owner of Shakesville, a multi-author blog about feminism and intersectionality, is one of the targets. Her address and phone number are published and so are suggestions about how to troll her, ranging from emailing her penis pictures, to “revenge-raping her,” to targeting a Shakesville audience member who also owns a blog by extracting “their info from whois database, Facebook, or a phone book then proceed to raep.” (Rape, deliberately misspelled as “raep,” can mean a dos or Ddos attack.) In 2007, the Shakesville website, along with several other feminist blogs, was the subject of Ddos attacks – but the primary tool used to harass McEwan, year after year, is threats of sexual violence and death. At one point, McEwan says, Encyclopedia Dramatica “used to feature a campaign offering a financial reward to anyone who could offer proof of raping and/or murdering me.”

    That’s no good.

    That’s a system in which the only people who can be genuinely free to participate are psychopaths. What the hell good is a system like that? Who wants to hear from no one but psychopaths (apart from other psychopaths)? Who wants to live in PsycopathWorld? Who wants online intellectual life handed over to psychopaths?

    So the first and most easily sustained method in the lulz process is the online hate storm – like the one directed at McEwan for the last several years, or the most recent one directed at Caroline Criado-Perez for her successful petition to have Jane Austen’s face put on the back of the UK’s £10 note. After the Bank of England announced that, yes, Jane Austen’s visage would grace the new bank note, Criado-Perez began receiving rape threats and death threats via Twitter – sometimes as many as 50 an hour. Criado-Perez told the BBC UK that she had “stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women.”

    “This is a systemic issue, the people doing this, this is their hobby, they just move from target to target, they’re like a roaming gang of some kind,” explains developer and consultant Adria Richards. She has “screen shots and screen captures of places where they were organizing these attacks,” Richards says, and sure enough, “they have scripts, templates.”

    No good, no good, no good.

    With legal recourse either unavailable or unenforceable, does the speech of trolls – online hecklers actively seeking to silence their targets – constitute a Heckler’s Veto? [Wendy] Kaminer says no. Trolling doesn’t interfere with articles and blog posts published online in the same way that a speaker can be silenced at a live event. Online, even when websites are bombarded with offensive comments or speakers are sent volumes of frightening messages, those communications don’t interfere with a person’s ability to publish a text or with an audience’s ability to read it. The words remain.

    I’m sorry, I like much of what Kaminer writes, but that’s just obtuse. The words don’t remain – they never appear if the people who would write them have been bullied into leaving the internet (see above). In PsychopathWorld, most words are filtered out by the psychopaths.

    As Diels says.

    Except the words might not remain. In 2007, after receiving rape threats and death threats, tech blogger Kathy Sierra canceled her speaking engagements, moved house (her address had been published and messages and packages were being sent to her home), and stopped writing and blogging for six years. (One of Sierra’s tormentors was later revealed to be “Weev,” an online identity of Andrew Auernheimer, who was later arrested and sentenced to 41 months in prison for hacking AT&T’s customer data.) Writer Linda Grant told journalists Vanessa Thorpe and Richard Rogers she quit writing her column for the Guardian because of “violent hate speech” that included anti-Semitism and misogyny. And just a few months ago, in June, Ms. Magazine canceled a series of blog posts by Heidi Yewman because it was unable to adequately moderate a trolling backlash that included attempts to publish Yewman’s home address. Ms. later reversed its position and reinstated the series, but the magazine’s first reaction is revealing. If a politically seasoned and professionally staffed organization with decades of experience confronting controversial issues can be destabilized by a trolling and lulz campaign, it’s not surprising that individual women quit, too.

    “I’ve spoken to many women who simply stopped engaging,” says feminist activist and author Soraya Chemaly. “They don’t support other people online because they don’t want to be targeted, they’ve stopped writing about certain topics, they silence themselves – which is of course the issue.” She adds, “I’m happy to talk about free speech, it’s very dear to me […] but the free speech we have to take care of first is the speech that is already lost,” because women are being intimidated off the Internet, out of public life and into silence.

    I’ve spoken to many such women too. I’ve also spoken to many women who say they would have stopped engaging if it weren’t for women who refuse to get off the Internet, out of public life and into silence. Kaminer would apparently read that as “See? The system works, those women stay.” That would be a fatuous and callous mistake. Yes, some of us stay, but we pay a price that we should not have to pay. Yes, others stay because we stay, but they too pay a price that they should not have to pay. It’s not a stable system and it sure as hell is not a fair system.

     

     

  • Displacement behavior

    I’ve been wondering how the Antis would respond, if at all. I couldn’t think of any way to do it – I have a terrible deficiency of imagination that way. I never can figure out how people are going to defend assholitude ahead of time, then when they do it it all seems so obvious. Stupid, banal, completely wrongheaded…but obvious.

    A quick survey of Twitter shows some of how it’s going to go now. The vocabulary to be deployed includes

    • Drama
    • Blog hits
    • Due process
    • Slander
    • Lawsuits

    There is complete silence about Carrie Poppy. Carrie Who? Never heard of her.

    I also haven’t seen any response to Sasha Pixlee’s account of his encounter with DJ Grothe.

    I actually first met DJ Grothe about a year before at Dragon*Con in 2010. I had admired his work on Point of Inquiry and when he became president of the JREF I thought it would be a great thing. When I got a chance to meet him that year I was excited. We encountered one another at a Skepchick party (one that had to be moved to the lobby because of noise complaints as soon as it started). He was drunk, but it was a social occasion and I’d had a couple cocktails as well. No big deal. I was fairly surprised though, when DJ turned to me and said that the reason everyone loved the Skepchicks was because they “want pussy”.

    Sums it all up, doesn’t it. Ignore the substance of what a group of women does, and reduce all the women in the group to their genitalia, while reducing any possible reason for paying attention to them to the desire to put your penis (note that DJ’s “everybody” omits some people) into said genitalia. Remember what Carrie said?

    The list of problems that I sent to the board was so long that my pasting it here would be comical at best, but it is relevant to note that although I didn’t list it, Mr. Grothe’s prejudice toward women was one undeniable factor. My predecessor, Sadie Crabtree, had warned me about D.J.’s misogyny and disrespect for women coworkers (she even advised me not to take the position, due to this issue), but I thought myself strong enough to endure it. I underestimated the degree to which such constant mistreatment can beat a person down. As I mentioned, I only lasted six months.

    The two accounts are consistent with each other. That’s an issue. Misogyny is an issue. There are a lot of people who want to pretend it isn’t, but it is. If atheists and skeptics want a big, powerful movement, then misogyny is an issue. Blathering about “drama” and “blog hits” does absolutely nothing to change that fact.