"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 .

'Funny you don't like people quoting, ZigZag. Wasn't 'the author of the article just looks like a publicity machine' one of yours?

I don't understand why that being 'one of mine' is connected to the thread disappearing up its own arse Narky.

but if you factor in domestic violence and sexual assaults and rapes (which are also violence) women are no less at risk from violence than men.

this is why I wish you'd read the whole thread first, I was far more precise in my original comment because I'd not been bored by repeating things five million times.

As for the rape comment, the threat would be in the implication that it is something that may be carried out. That, imo, is not there, and that is why I don't find it threatening, even if it had been aimed at me.

Did you even read my post on deindividuation? That was a line of discussion I would be interested in pursuing.

Does Laurie Penny get threats about being tortured in hell by Satan?

Why would you expect Dawkins and LP to get the same hate mail?

She said straight white men can use the internet free from the fear of abuse. She's a hell of a poor writer if she meant fear from abuse based on their gender/sexuality/race but any other abuse (which may or may not contain insults, vitriol, death threats and campaigns of intimidation) is fair cop.

Do you see what I mean by her article muddying the waters by being crap?

Please don't sigh at me.

I'm responding to what you said right there. Your claim was that men are more at risk of violence, with no qualification. Well if you exclude all the types of violence that happens to women, they are, but that's just messing with statistics, not accurately describing the real situation. The point is it is incorrect to say that men are subject to more violence than women. They aren't.

I did read your post about deindividuation, I don't think that's what it's about. I think there's a lot of misogyny in the world and that's why some men feel free to be so hateful to women. They don't do it anonymously either by any means. Quite a lot of attacks happen on Facebook from people who are using their real names.

Once again noblegiraffe, gang rape at knife point, including oral rape, is something that actually happens to some women. It's also a common theme in porn, without the knives generally, which is where the little fucker probably got his idea.

On the other I don't think that Richard Dawkins has any fear of meeting Satan.

Go back and read the thread where it was posted about men and violence and women and rape. I really can't be bothered to do it all again.

So you think that despite lots of people getting abuse on the internet in lots of forms and for lots of reasons, you think that women getting sexual abuse on the internet is a completely different kettle of fish? Right.,

thunder, the sender of the Satan threat is a Christian nutjob and I'm not sure they can think rationally about what Dawkins might actually think of Satan torturing him. To them, it might be the perfect threat to an atheist.

When you're insulting a woman, a rape threat is a good bet to have an effective outcome.

Call a man a faggot

Tell a teenage boy that he's a sad loser who'll never get a girlfriend

Tell a teenage girl that everybody hates her and talks about her behind her back.

I wonder what a twitter tag 'peoplecallmethings' would come up with.

You know I'll just quote you noblegiraffe. You felt quite comfortable to claim:

"It has already been pointed out that men are more likely to be victims of violence and homicide than women"

The first part is wrong. Just wrong. I corrected you. I'm not going to read a previous conversation where other people corrected you. Why would I?

And yes women getting sexually violent abuse on the internet does fit into a particular category. It's call violent misogynistic hate speech. There are some men who feel very happy to communicate on that level, they and their attitudes need to be challenged, and there is nothing wrong with focusing on this particular problem as Laurie Penny does. It's you bringing "it happens to men too" when men aren't in fact subject to that kind of sexual terrorisation that is muddying the waters.

If the problem was racially violent hate speech by white people or violent homophobia by straight people I would also agree it must be addressed.

A rape threat isn't an insult, it's a threat of sexual violence.

I'm not understanding why you don't see the difference, noblegiraffe.

Thunder you are kind of guilty of the same thing your accusing the other poster of stating men are greater victims of violence and homicide with no qualification. Because I am pretty sure that you are saying women are greater victims of violence based on what you feel than statistics. You may have a point for accumulative violence (although there are more male victims of homicide I can tell you).

By the way the majority of violence (including rape in this) women experience are by people known to them. So technically women have less reason to fear threats from strangers than men

Why are you so sure ColdTruth? In fact it's based on statistics I've seen. If you're desperate for them, I'll dig around and look for them tomorrow and post them here.

"By the way the majority of violence (including rape in this) women experience are by people known to them. So technically women have less reason to fear threats from strangers than men"

Do you think that technically women remember that when some shithead male on the internet is telling them that their "cunt needs to be nailed to the wall and gangraped"? It's a real problem this focusing on the women. There's no excuse for rape threats. Ever. Focusing on the "technicalities" of who rapes women most is completely missing the point.

Those are comments designed to cause distress to the person reading it. So was the rape comment you posted earlier. Perhaps I should have just gone for 'I'm going to smash your head in' which could be targeted at anyone, but I was trying to show that the sender is trying to cause maximum upset and as they don't actually know much about the person they're abusing, they trot out specific types depending on how they can categorise the victim.

The others, if persistent, can have horrible outcomes for the victim, so I'm not sure it is correct to dismiss them so easily.

I didn't dismiss them as insults, of course nobody should be insulted, but if you're going to put insults into the same category as threats then you're simply incorrect.

Also if we're going to get all technical about it as technicalities now seem to be important here, a court certainly wouldn't treat the two the same. Threats of violence are serious because they can have a strong effect on their subjects.

It just seems like another attempt at minimisation by you. First you say what these women describe happens to men too, when in fact men are not routinely threatened with sexual violence on the internet, even though male rapists rape men as well as women so the threat could easily be used. Now you say that being threatened with rape is the same as being insulted.

I don't really understand where you're coming from, because it seems to rely on being inaccurate, noblegiraffe.

Is it possible for you not to repeat the disgusting, offensive remarks that have been made please thunder?

You have quoted one in your last paragraph.

I agree they are revolting, they should never have been said in the first place, and anyone receiving them has a right to feel however they feel about them (angry, upset, scared etc).

But I think to repeat them, although I understand you may be doing it to illustrate the extent of the remarks, is similar to repeating a racist or disablist 'joke' doing the rounds.

If people want to find out what's been said, they can look for themselves.

I was talking about the quote in your post of 22.38.

No I don't think it is possible Agent ZigZag.

Not with the attempts at minimisation going on here.

If people are going to say that calling a man a "faggot" is on the same level as what is being said to women on the internet by some men which is the subject of this thread then the only way to contradict it is with the actual facts.

This is horrifying and appalling misogyny. People like Laurie Penny are bringing it out into the open. I've dealt with some of this stuff myself, not directed at me individually but still serious threats and harassment using pornography and rape threats as intimidation to a group I was part of. It needs to have a light shone on it, and then it needs to stop.

I think if you find it uncomfortable maybe you shouldn't read the thread. It's like asking people to deal with anti-semitism, whilst ignoring Nazi propaganda.

I did notice though that you were pleased with the results of the misogynistic bullying, with Eleanor O'Hagan saying she'd toned down her feminism because of it, and which you thought was a good thing. I found that a little disturbing.

Now you say that being threatened with rape is the same as being insulted.

No I'm not. I was trying to point out why women might get a rape threat where a man would get a different comment. And why they might be equally distressing for the recipient even if you want to put them into different categories. The different categories are fair enough, but I don't think you can say that one category might have more impact in general than another, because it depends on the victim.

First you say what these women describe happens to men too, when in fact men are not routinely threatened with sexual violence on the internet

Nope. I didn't say they suffered the same abuse. I've said many times on this thread (which you clearly still haven't read) that women undoubtedly receive far more sexualised threats than men.

Also you've used the term revolting AZZ and NG has used the term disgusting. What they are in fact is misogynistic or woman-hating if you prefer.

I think that's possibly where the divide lies here, because some of us are seeing misogyny, whilst others aren't.

If people are going to say that calling a man a "faggot" is on the same level as what is being said to women on the internet by some men

www.queerty.com/billy-lucas-15-hangs-himself-after-classmates-called-him-a-fag-one-too-many-times-20100914/

Do you see the problem with dismissing insults as 'not on the same level' as other comments?

I think it's pretty obvious that you can say that a threat of violence will have more of an effect on the victim than an insult. Which is why they are treated in law with different approaches because one is so much more serious than the other. One is a crime, the other usually isn't, unless it's part a sustained campaign of harassment.

Violent threats are designed to terrorise. Insults are designed to insult.

That was an x-post, but I think my post above pretty much answers it.

A sustained campaign of harassment is not the same as a one-off insult. Harassment and stalking are also crimes, as is making violent threats.

I think any extreme viewpoint needs to be toned down if it wants to engage with a mainstream audience.

That doesn't make me disturbed, it makes me observant of what subjects get onto certain agendas to be discussed, and more importantly, what subjects don't get onto that agenda and why.

You insinuate it's because I agree with 'misogynistic bullying', something else that has been written into my posts that isn't there.

You saying it's not possible does make me wonder why someone would want to keep on posting such revolting things said by men you seem to despise.

Why amplify their voice in such a way?

Right, so internet abuse doesn't have to be a violent sexual threat to a) be a crime and b) be incredibly distressing for the victim.

We're agreed.