"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 didn't see that as her point.

I saw that her point was that women receive sexually based threats of extreme violence to silence them.

Threats like that received by the Catholic Voice lady: "You're gonna scream when you get yours. Fucking slag. Butter wouldn't fucking melt, and you'll cry rape when you get what you've asked for. Bitch."

Is it that you think that threat isn't gendered, or that the gendering of that threat is not relevant? She said that those threats made her afraid and impacted on her work, that is the experience that is being denied. You disagree with the idea that men don't receive similar threats and that it would be "factually inaccurate" to suggest that they don't receive similar abuse (which is your opinion, though I am suspicious as there are no men saying they have received similar in this context) but actually, it's entirely valid to suggest that these comments are meant to silence women EVEN IF men receive similar comments e.g. from feminists who want them castrated. It is STILL about gender, even if men receive the same threats. It is STILL about silencing women, even if men receive the same threats.

I don't really understand your argument.

I know what 'disingenuos' means, working9while5, it was one of the first words I had to look up when I joined MN, along with 'passive aggressive' and 'deconstruct'. People have given honest opinions on this thread and they've been ignored numerous times. That's the prerogative of the reader but I suppose that's why threads get to seventy pages or so... everybody's talking, nobody's listening.

Take catgirl's post at 12.33... made previously and previously and, if catgirl hasn't lost the will to live, maybe again. Falls on deaf ears.

I don't consider that men rule the world, I just don't understand why women take such delight and insistence on putting each other in their place.

I think Hedley was 'used' as a 'catspaw' and it doesn't surprise me at all. Nasty and insidious of those involved.

Can we be reasonable and honest about something here? Put aside for a moment any antipathy you might have about feminism or feminist posters and answer this question objectively.

If this thread had been about black journalists who wrote about negative experiences of being a black citizen in this country and one of them wrote an article about some online responses that were threatening and perjorative about the writer's race or colour, would you have expected Mumsnetters to respond that:

• The comments weren't racially motivated.
• It's just as bad for other groups.
• The writers invite this sort of criticism.
• Posters in support of the writer are "pervy" for bringing other posters attention to some of the worst comments the writer had received.
• Anti-racist posters are 'nasty' and want to make everything a race issue.

And would you think it even more astonishing if the majority of posters saying the above, were black themselves?

"I really wonder if that's why men seemingly rule the world... they don't get caught up in the pointless catfights?"

Arf at seemingly.

Men don't get into catfights? Do you watch PM's Question Time? They do and they do it while governing the country and deciding how much tax we all pay and which countries we should be bombing (oh just to be fair the women MPs join in as well but there's not so many of them). That's the only difference - their catfights actually have influence and change the course of history.

Laurie Penny wrote:

I believe the time for silence is over. If we want to build a truly fair and vibrant community of political debate and social exchange, online and offline, it's not enough to ignore harassment of women, LGBT people or people of colour who dare to have opinions. Free speech means being free to use technology and participate in public life without fear of abuse ? and if the only people who can do so are white, straight men, the internet is not as free as we'd like to believe.

There's an if there. It doesn't say men don't receive abuse. The abuse she is talking about is racial, sexual and homophobic. How often is this abuse directed at straight, white men? As this has been mentioned in several national publications hopefully straight, white men will be given a voice to talk about their experience of abuse too and then the debate can be widened.

It's not "falling on deaf ears", I don't agree with it or understand it as an opinion, that's not quite the same thing. I see it just as Charbon does (excellent post), that it is bizarre that there is such a need to "explain away" these rape threats by saying that well, hey, men could be subject to rape threats too so therefore it is irrelevant that women receive them.

The threats are shocking. As a woman, I am horrified that women writers receive threats of rape as explicit and graphic as those that have been in the media this week. That key point of feeling/empathy etc seemed to me to be sorely missing from that portion of the thread I had read when I first posted: I didn't see any horror, surprise or sadness that a woman would receive these threats, just a lot of reasons as to why it wasn't really about her being a woman because plenty of others might have crap times from internet trolls too. I don't buy it, any more than I don't believe that when those cartoons came out of Michelle Obama being lynched that that was not about race. Or that because it was about race made the existence of misogynist hate comments less important, or that because there are comments made on the basis of misogny and race that this would somehow dilute homophobic threats. All of these are unacceptable, and sorry, but no matter how you dress it up, a rape threat such as the one I quoted above IS gendered and intended to silence women. It doesn't mean that other threats aren't issued with the same intent to others, of course not, but it is a horrifying thing that women are subjected to this because some people don't like their views. That's what the article is really about.

Charbon

Putting everything aside...

If the thread had been about a black journalist who wrote that he / she recieved racially abusive comments because he / she was black and that white people did not recieve abuse when they posted opinions on the internet I would think the following:

1. The comments were possibly not all racially motivated, but racist in nature. I would think this because using racist comments to someone who is black is perhaps the "easist" abuse the abuser could come up with. The fact that the author was black might or or might not be the initial reason for the abuse.

I might think the abuser had an issue with what the author wrote about, but not being very bright found it easiest to hurl racial abuse, or I might think the abusers only issue was the colour of the author. It would depend on the comments made etc.

In the original article by LP, she is able to tie one of the most horrible threats of sexual violence to a specific point she raised "for criticising neoliberal economic policymaking, I should be made to fellate a row of bankers at knifepoint". That makes me think the abusers issue was with her critisicm of neoliberal economic policymaking, but being a moron and rather twisted, used a threat of sexual violence to show his dislike of her view. So in that situation I would say the motivation was not gender / race althought the subsequent abuse was gender / race specific.

1. If the hypothetical black author said that white people could post opinions and not recieve abuse / threats, I would disagree. One example on this thread has been the ME researcher who was nearly attacked by a woman with a knife, or the death threats recieved by Richard Dawkins. It is clear that the assertion that any group or individual can post on the internet without fear of abuse or threat is false, so yes I would seek to correct that assertion if it was made. If it was NOT made, I wouldn't feel the need to point it out, but in this case it was.

1. I would not say "the writer invites this sort of criticism", however I might say "the writer invites criticism". These 2 sentences are actually fundamentally very different. You will find only the latter was used on this thread, not the one you have quoted which has a very different meaning. Perhaps you might want to correct yourself there as I think you are mis-representing what was actually said.

1. Posters in support of the writer are pervy? I would not say that. I have missed someone saying that in thread. I think that is a bizarre thing to say. Had I seen it I would have been baffled, so no I would not say that. I will re-read the thread to find that as it strikes me as so odd.

1. Anti-racist posters are nasty and want to make everything a race issue. If I thought there were anti-racist posters being nasty I would say they were being nasty. If I though the anti-racist posters were not being nasty, I would not say I thought they were being nasty. If I felt the posters were trying to create a race issue where non existed, I would say I felt posters were trying to create a race issue where non existed.

Hope that answers your question

Why do some people not believe that men rule the world? America has never had a female president. I may be wrong, but hasn't England only ever had one female prime minister? How many women are in parliament at present? Of the three main political parties, how many are fronted by women? Are we not seeing benefit cuts which affect women in a predominate nature? Do we still have an epidemic of violence against women? I'll just add that on the course I did a couple of years back, we worked out that out of 15 women in the group, 10 had been victims of violence from a former partner. by the end of the course, another woman had been assaulted by her partner. Those stats aren't representive of England, but that's still scary stuff to consider. I'm not sure of the current status, but at the moment, one US State is looking to decriminalize domestic abuse to save money. And men don't rule the world?

Thanks for the warm welcome LyingWitch and Whatmeworry. It's been, erm, interesting.

"In the original article by LP, she is able to tie one of the most horrible threats of sexual violence to a specific point she raised "for criticising neoliberal economic policymaking, I should be made to fellate a row of bankers at knifepoint". That makes me think the abusers issue was with her critisicm of neoliberal economic policymaking, but being a moron and rather twisted, used a threat of sexual violence to show his dislike of her view. So in that situation I would say the motivation was not gender / race althought the subsequent abuse was gender / race specific."

Now I really don't get what you are saying.

Yes, of course the abusers' issue is the original opinion, this is the whole premise of the article. The abuser reads something they don't like and rather than addressing the opinion itself, resort to gender-specific threats of violence as a means of discrediting the opinion. This is a silencing tactic.

That is the point of the article as I read it.

What are you saying here? You are clearly not defending the threatening comment, so that's fair enough.. but what's your issue with the author saying this is what happened and that there is a nasty gender-specific element to it e.g. that would not happen if she was not a woman? I honestly don't understand what you are saying.

Charbon If this thread had been about black journalists who wrote about negative experiences of being a black citizen in this country and one of them wrote an article about some online responses that were threatening and perjorative about the writer's race or colour, would you have expected Mumsnetters to respond that:

• The comments weren't racially motivated. No, because they obviously are about race or colour as you've specified.
• It's just as bad for other groups. Not really, because race and colour are distinct from religion or from gender. However, what happens when a writer happens to belong to more than one grouping? Does it 'meld' into 'one' or is one aspect highlighted over another?

• The writers invite this sort of criticism. Possibly. I think you take your chances when you post to the world at large. I understand that this is difficult for journalists but actually, I don't see why they aren't allowed to write under a nom de plume, or are they? I realise that it's not addressing the hostility issue, but it might help with safety

• Posters in support of the writer are "pervy" for bringing other posters attention to some of the worst comments the writer had received. No, I dont agree with that at all.

• Anti-racist posters are 'nasty' and want to make everything a race issue. No but I think that's two issues. Cut that sentance in half - Anti racist posters are nasty - no they aren't. Anti-racist posters want to make everything a race issue - some do and some don't. I find that when somebody has a burning issue it can be all consuming. I'll give this as an example only - when I found out about Animals Asia, I was truly haunted. I couldn't focus on anything other than that for many months. It encroached on everything I did and thought about.

And would you think it even more astonishing if the majority of posters saying the above, were black themselves? The race/colour issue doesn't 'fit' in my mind. You're comparing different things and it's confusing to me. I can't see that it works the same way, ie. comparing black writer who has received threats as viewed by black people (all black people, either gender). That's the same - all that's missing is the 'threat'. In the OP, the writer is segregating women who receive threats of rape, dismissing the fact that ANYBODY is at risk of this, any gender.

I might well be wrong, but that's how I see it based on the information I've read and some thinking.

Sorry Charbon - I missed one

It's as bad for other groups

Yes - if the hypothetical black author had written such an article I might well be moved to comment that it was terrible and what is worse, such attacks were sadly not just confined to black people, but to lots of different races, religions, ages, gender and viewpoints and that it was horrendous how wide spread this was and that it should be stopped no matter who the victim / reciepeint was.

Catgirl Re your 4th point, it started at 00:23 with the following comments:

"Eleanor, do you and the other feminists get some sort of sneaky thrill when you type these things.. I ask, because it only seems to be the feminists who seem to repeatedly type out things about "cocks" etc.."

"Great big cocks squeaky? "

"Eleanor if a man posted the sort of explicit sexual language you seem to so strongly favour, I think he'd be accused of being a pervert...getting his rocks off at speaking to women that way.

Sorry but you're making me feel a bit sick with it and you're coming across as a bit pervy "

So for restating some of the sexually abusive threats, one poster was leapt on with great delight by 3 posters.

HTH

My point was more about simply going for what people see as weak point. If it was lost through being expressed poorly, fine. But actually looking at the other posts on the thread, I think its more about women actually wanting something to jump on. The ginger haired thing has been blown completely out of proportion. If those people had threats of violence that involved those phrases, then yeah it is the same level.

Frankly I find some of the 'feminist' views on this thread very very depressing and narrowminded and actively seeking to be the victim in their mentality.

I shall stay well away from feminist debate in future as frankly I can't be bothered to deal with the utter blindness of what other types of abuse go on and how actually so many of these views make things worse for women, not better.

Over and out.

What I am saying working - is that all threats of violence towards people are bad and should not happen.

No threat is worse or better because it is made against one group of people than another. There is no "scale of badness" - it is unacceptable and wrong in any form against any person and in any guise.

It is sickening how widespread such abuse is but the internet makes it easy for people to post hateful views from an anonymity.

It is false and dangerous to assume any group is safe from abuse / threats.

Does that make sense?

It's disgusting that LP receives threats of rape from pathetic saddos - I'm not sure what can be done to stop it? - I had a PM on F/B ( from a woman ) threatening to tie me up and rape me - not quite sure how she was planning on doing that but I didn't stick around to find out. I reported her and her email to F/B HQ but I didn't even get a reply - I suppose it happens so often on there they can't keep up. I agree the Internet should be policed more, there are so many nutters out there it's amazing. What do people do? Stay off the Internet - stop having an opinion that might trigger a violent response in the feeble minded?
It's really difficult isn't it, but yes - it's awful that anyone can be attacked in this way - this is supposed to be a democracy where free speech is welcomed and encouraged - but it appears internet nutters are doing a good job in trying to silence people - who needs North Korea when you have keyboard warriors?

Rycooler, I'm sorry you had a pm like that. that's truly vile. have you tried reporting it again?

I don't think there is a scale of badness either, but I don't believe in the PC mentality that you can't even mention that something has happened to one group more than another or specifically say that something terrible is happening to one particular group without THE caveat "of course everyone could suffer this". I am very doubtful that white heterosexual males receive a comparable amount of sexually explicit violent threats to their female counterparts, simply based on the fact that if they did I think it really would have come out in the last few weeks. The hate speech issue probably is widespread, but I don't see that an opinion piece focusing on it from a female perspective dilutes it.

Not sure what's wrong with a perspective piece that is written from the point of view of the person at the centre of it? I work with Muslim teens, I was in an ethnic minority at their age but their issues are different to mine, the whole context is different. It doesn't have to be about scaling, it's okay to write as a woman and see differences... anyone can be raped, it's true, but it is a bigger fear for most women than it is for men and has more power as a threat. I don't see the problem with highlighting this or how it detracts from any other issue, or why it's impossible to discuss without having to take into account all the other possible things that may go wrong in the world.

Rycooler Have you printed out the message? Is the woman's FB profile her real identity? I think it would be worth popping along to the police station and asking them to have a word with her if so - she'll be easy enough to trace and a 5 minute visit reminding her of the Malicious Communications Act and the Protection from Harassment Act might help?

Not that it's relevant (because there is no excuse for her behaviour!) but what precipitated the PM? Was it a completely random person or is the person known to you in RL?

Lucy - no, I didn't bother - I just don't go on F/B much anymore - or when I do I don't post on anything political.

And thank you for your concern - xx

Quietly, I don't think anyone has denied that other groups receive abuse. but i think the point put across is that white, heterosexual middle class men rarely receive the same level of violent threats. Many of the insults and threats aimed at men, from what I read on blogs, forums, news sites etc will focus on degrading the man. I've lost count of how many times I've heard a man called gay by way of an insult, regardless of his sexuality. that's a homophobic insult. to call him anything that aims to reduce him to a female, or female genitals is a misogynistic insult. I've yet to see a feminist threaten to carry out genital mutilation on a man. I've seen feminists challenge their way of thinking, but never threats of cutting off their penis. I'd challenge it if I did...

No I don't know her at all - she wasn't on my friends list ( I never add people I don't know) she was a 'friend' of someone else. I can't remember exactly what we were talking about but I know it was about politics - she got a bit arsy with me so I told her to fuck off. -

But then that's you being silenced. which shouldn't happen. :/ party posted the more sensible suggestion. no one should be threatened for having an opinion.

The original article made the point that white middle class males were the only group who could post opinions on the internet without fear of abuse or threats.

Because the original article made this point that is why it was discussed. It was not brought up by people on the thread to make the caveat "of course everyone could suffer this". It was a point in the orignal article and it was wrong.

No one has tried to say that men recieve a similar level of threats of sexual violence. People have said men probably recieve a similar level of threats of violence.

People have said that in direct response to the point made in the article which many people feel was incorrect.

It is possible to discuss one aspect of hate crime without taking into account all the other things that may go wrong in the world, however the "men do get threats / abuse" issue was ONLY raised because the article suggested they don't.

It isnt an apology for abuse recieved by females - it is a direct response to something the article said which many people do not agree with

I really don't think i can point this out again so I hope it has got through this time

THE ARTICLE RASIED THE SUGGESTION THAT WHITE MIDDLE CLASS MALES DO NOT GET THREATS / ABUSE WHEN POSTING OPINIONS ON THE INTERNET.

PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THIS SUGGESTION. THEY DIDNT RANDOMLY START SAYING "OH IT HAPPENS TO MEN" - THEY SPECIFICALLY REFUTED THE SUGGESTION MADE BY THE AUTHOR THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN TO W, MC, MEN.

THAT DOESNT DETRACT FROM THE UNACEPTABILITY OF THE AUTHORS EXPERIENCE. ITS JUST SHE SUGGESTED SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE FELT WAS UNTRUE, SO THEY SAID THEY FELT IT WAS UNTRUE.

OK?

Please don't shout, catgirl. i can't read excessive capital letters. It's not me being funny, I'm dyslexic and struggle with more than a couple of words in capitals. sorry.