"A woman's opinion is the miniskirt of the internet"

[HedleyLamarr]

I posted this in Feminism [brave emoticon], and someone has suggested putting it in AIBU.

So, I was sent a link to this article in the Independent. Your thoughts/ideas are much appreciated .

I don't want to be a 'feminist', I thought I was but that label I just don't want. This thread was posted here for no other reason than to create bad feeling and deliver verbal punches... way to go!

Catgirl - I consider myself a feminist in that I believe women should have equal rights with men ( pay etc ) but some of the stuff I see written on here - well, I just can't believe what I'm reading.

AmorYCohetes

The comment made to me was about a 1970s feminist telling the next generation how to do things.
Even someone of limited intellect should be able to discern that is a reference to age.

Do you have a comment about the fact I was called a monster?
No thought not.
What exactly are you adding to this dicourse? More of the same it appears.

^I find the culture of ridicule, intolerance and spite deeply unpleasant.
I hope it is just a MN thing though - I am reluctant to believe that the future of the women's movement is in the hands of people who are so quick to abuse other women.^

MN Feminism dooesn't speak for all Feminism, ideologically it is a very extreme form of Radical Feminism as best as I can make out, and the style of debate used is typical of any stripe of extremist - ie hectoring rather than debate, repetition of mantras, selective use of facts and emphasis, redefining of words to confuse outsiders.

Rape seems to be the MN Feminist's obsession, rather than political rights, economic rights, social rights etc etc - any thread that can potentially be turned into a rape thread is jumped on with relish (Jo Yeates, PetrolHeads, dodgy T Shirts, bolshie Journos getting hate mail etc etc).

I think the name calling used is fairly standard Internet stuff, its more - like laurie Penny who this post was about - they like to dish it out but don't liek to take it.

And just in case you feel like accusing me of making things up again - here is the original quote

"wow nothing like a 1970s feminist telling the next generation how to "do feminism"

Would it be acceptable to say -

"wow nothing like a 1970s teacher telling the next generation how to do teaching?"

It infers that person is outmoded, out of date, irrelevant, a dinosaur of the past.

Do you understand why this is an abusive ageist comment and should have no place in feminism?

It may be true that men and women do both get abusive comments in response to their online words, but it is also true that women (and not men) often have their gender used against them in these abusive comments. This is a particularly painful form of abuse because it reinforces the idea that women are defined essentially in terms of their gender, so that their views on whatever subject can be pigeonholed and discounted simply on the grounds of gender. And because it really does resonate with a feeling of (sometimes mild, sometimes not) physical threat that most women have experienced to some extent at the hands of men who feel a need to direct a sexualised anger at them in real-life encounters, just because they are women.

So, yes, of course there is a specific dynamics of internet comment that make for an often vicious and hateful conversational environment whether you are a man or a woman. But there is also the separate dynamics of gender-based hostility. The Guardian had a great article about it in the wake of the Penny article. I expect it has already been linked to. I hope newspapers do what they can to support women contributors with this, or female journalism will be underrepresented online.

(I recommend that everyone sticks to the world of philosophy blogs, where every comment begins with "That was a really lucid piece that made me rethink my own views a lot. Thanks. ...")

CalatalieSisters -

That was a really lucid piece that made me rethink my own views a lot

Nah, everyone knows they mean "that was rot and I'm not changing my enttrenched view on iota".

I read the Guardian piece, it made a very telling comment re women being both sexual and social beings, and that is why they get some of the reaction they do.

My thought at that was that it is probably also true of minorities being racial beings, worshippers being religious beings etc etc etc. Plus, having been on the Internet for many a year in various anonymous forums I can also testify that anybody with a view in an emotional area will get all sorts of threats thrown at them.

My irritation with Laurie Penny writing it is that she is a "schlock" journo - ie goes out of her waty to court controversy (and I thought this artivle was just part of that output btw) - and so by definition she will get a lot of crap, and I resented her demand that all women must man the barricade behind her, when my view is that I don't like schlock journos of any stripe.

Meant to put a :o after iota....

That was why I liked the follow up article in the Guardian, though. Made it clear that it isn't just journos like Penny, but many many women online writers, who face this.

Made it clear that it isn't just journos like Penny, but many many women online writers, who face this.

Sorry yes, was agreeing - my thought was more that it won't just be women though. Any "off the norm" will probably get it - race, religion, class etc etc - as its a way of picking on a difference.

I think I would get behind the barricades for that vicars wife, but not for Laurie Penny iyswim.

The sanest response to this article - and this thread would have been:

"It's indefensible that any journalist or blogger receives hate comments."

and

"It's okay to disagree with a journalist, but it's unacceptable to highlight the writer's difference. That's when free speech becomes hate speech."

Instead some posters have tried to defend the indefensible because they want to harangue feminists.

How very odd.

I believe that It's indefensible that any journalist or blogger receives hate comments. is extremely close to my response and the response of a lot of other people.

But that apparantly was condoning sexual threats to women.

Instead some posters have tried to defend the indefensible because they want to harangue feminists.

Actually if you read the thread, it started with some people thinking Laurie Penny was over-egging it vs any iother schlock on the 'Net, ie the line was

"It's indefensible that any journalist or blogger receives hate comments" ratgher than just female ones.

And then a bunch of the usual MN Feminists waded in and started haranguing them about this attitude, and then tried to turn it into a rape thread.

And, oddly enough for MN, the others argued back (usually they just leave when the MN Feminists arrive).

Charbon - have you seen the abuse Liz Jones gets on Mumsnet? A female journalist being called - 'mental, ugly, fat, deranged, fucked-up' - (and they're some of the nicer insults) - I was on a LJ thread last week and I was the only one defending her. Women, yes even feminists on Mumsnet, can be pretty brutal when it suits them.

Oh look - there's another ' let's attack Liz Jones' thread today.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe Mon 07-Nov-11 09:17:38

I don't want to be a 'feminist', I thought I was but that label I just don't want. This thread was posted here for no other reason than to create bad feeling and deliver verbal punches... way to go!

Good morning. Have you actually read my OP and my subsequent posts explaining why I put this in AIBU? If you had, you would know for a FACT that I originally put this in Feminism and someone suggested I put it in here.
I most certainly did not want to create bad feeling, I merely wanted to show my disgust for the men who threaten female bloggers with rape. Is it a bad thing that Laurie Penny has brought this out into the open? Personally I don't think it is; the more publicity she and other female bloggers get the better. That way, maybe they will get some legal protection from those vile tossers.

As soon as any journalist or blogger starts getting hateful remarks based on their sex, it becomes an equality issue. If an article's respondents highlight the writer's race and make hateful remarks because of it, it becomes a racism issue.

This writer received hateful comments that referred to her sex. It is transparently a feminist issue and I am perplexed about why some posters would rather sneer at feminism, than express anger towards the hate speakers.

On the Internet anyone who has any attention will eventually be abused. The people that do this will tend to use any insult they feel will cause the most offence so the 'flavour' of the Abuse will certainly be different depending on the persons race, gender, age, attractiveness, size, sexuality etc.

I think it was wrong of the journo to try and claim that it is only women that get this kind of treatment although she has every right to complain about it. After all I have seen people abuse men in a sexual nature on the Internet before. It also isn't really true to state that men have no reason to fear abuse either since men are statistically more likely to violently attacked/killed especially by strangers.

I have HedleyLamarr. I know you put it in 'Feminism'. I don't know why you've posted it on AIBU on the suggestion of somebody else. It's your prerogative, but it's mine to think that when a thread like this is posted outside of 'feminist board', it's to encourage a volley of insults and give the MN feminists an excuse to pile in and be derogatory.

You said that you 'merely wanted to show your disgust for the men who threaten female bloggers with rape'. How is that an AIBU topic? Are you being unreasonable to feel disgust? No, of course not. What you wanted was what this thread has achieved. If not bad feeling then to my mind, definitely 'them and us'. It's always the same. MN Feminists swoop in and criticise anybody who doesn't toe their line. It amazes me how, given that AIBU is the 'bottom of the MN barrel', that so many MN feminists know that the thread is here. Uncanny, hmm?

You can post where and what you like but why AIBU? For this? Cats-paw, perhaps?

Why was it suggested you post this in AIBU? -

I imagine the OP simply wanted to highlight this issue to a wider selection of posters and is puzzled that instead of accepting that hate speech in what ever form it takes is wrong, some posters seemed determined to argue that the comments the writer received were nothing to do with her sex and can only be expected these days, especially if a writer has the temerity to express strong views.

I haven't seen the Liz Jones threads RyCooler, but I would be frankly astonished if any poster who called herself a feminist would have written those insults about the writer's appearance, but it doesn't surprise me at all that non-feminist women would have written those comments.

A feminist poster is more likely to disagree with Liz Jones's political views, or to comment on her journalistic abilities.

I imagine the OP simply wanted to highlight this issue to a wider selection of posters and is puzzled that instead of accepting that hate speech in what ever form it takes is wrong, some posters seemed determined to argue that the comments the writer received were nothing to do with her sex and can only be expected these days, especially if a writer has the temerity to express strong views.

No, some posters are pointing out if you write controversial stuff online you get slagged off, no matter who you are - its called the Internet....

I'm wondering if the whole hoo-ha in this thread is between people who are familar ith the Internet and those who only really use MN and maybe comment on newspaper articles.

And as to MN Feminists never writing nasty stuff....I think the biggest complaint about engaging with them from everybody who has tried is precisely that they are so nasty.

Chabon - the reason I have the feminist section hidden is because I find the posters there extremely difficult to talk to. It's a cold, hard, uninviting place and I have no intention of ever going near it.
And I hate to say it - but if we ever get a 'hide poster' option I would hide them all.