"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 .

But why would you assume it was an extreme viewpoint that she was posting. There are some very middle of the road feminists getting some horrendous abuse from men. There are women who aren't even feminists at all still getting rape and death threats.

Also the people issuing misogynistic abuse aren't representative of the mainstream, so why should their bullying get to set the tone of what is published?

I didn't say you agreed with misogynistic bullying, I actually worded that pretty carefully. What I said was that you were pleased with its results.

I'm not amplifying the misogynists' voices here. I'm putting them into context which actually undermines and condemns them by showing them and their views up for what they really are. People don't deal with abuse and bullying by hiding its true reality, in fact the best thing to do is to put it in the spotlight as Laurie Penny and many others have done in the past few days.

Yes it looks like we are agreed noblegiraffe now that you've backed off comparing a single insult with the threat of rape. You're right, a one off insult e.g. calling someone a faggot is not the same as either a sustained campaign of harassment nor is it the same as a threat of sexual violence.

Nor for the record is threatening rape to a woman or girl like telling a teenage boy that he's a sad loser who'll never get a girlfriend, or telling a teenage girl that everybody hates her and talks behind her back.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100115868/the-campaign-to-stamp-out-misogyny-online-echoes-victorian-efforts-to-protect-women-from-coarse-language/

Adds fuel to the fire and runs
Not my opinion btw

I think I'm going to have to sigh again.

You can't decide, thunder, which is more hurtful to the victim.

You can put them in categories all you want and speculate, but at the end of the day you have not got the right to tell the victim how they should feel on a scale of 1-10.

And you have not got the right to tell someone else that the abuse that they are receiving is less of a problem and less worthy of comment than the abuse someone else is receiving.

quietlyafraid did you read the comments under the article too?

How have you added fuel to the fire, quietlyafraid?

White middle-class male roundly dismisses phenomenon occurring to group other than his, followed by some very calm, measured and articulate rebuttals below.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

SlinkingOutsideInSocks

why the need to quantitfy "White middle-class male"?

Boneyback because it's these attributes which mark him out to be not on the receiving end of misogynist and racist abuse.

Anyway, I think he's just trolling, but ultimately fails

I think the Torygraph article does make two relevant points though:

• the Orwellian nature of "hate-speech" (ie it probably needs an agreed and tight defintion)

• That getting these sorts of censorship systems enabled will have unintended consequences as they will be used by those in power (aka the Patriarchy) for far more than this purpose.

Are we non-compliant posters silenced yet?

Btw I thought that XKCD cartoon was brilliant, but my point is best made by suggesting that man in the black hat will in reality not be so benign.

oh the irony lyingWitch

Not really, SinicalSal. That's how I feel. It's impossible to discuss anything with some posters. They misquote, mislead, purposely take things out of context and talk others down until they're quiet. Where have I seen that before?

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it isn't so either.

To be fair, Lying, that happened in both directions on this thread. I had several lines of CAPITALS thrown at me because what was being said was "falling on deaf ears" or "not getting through to me". We just didn't agree.

They misquote, mislead, purposely take things out of context and talk others down until they're quiet.

That is classic trolling behaviour, its worth reporting to MNHQ.

Lying Is this the kind of silencing you mean that you referred to earlier ie. locking in locking down the F/WR board? "Thinking about it... I'm quite happy to lobby MNHQ to lock-down the feminist board... on the proviso that they don't come out again..."

And just to be clear I did not ask for your earlier post to me to be deleted telling me to get off the thread - "I really can't be bothered, PartyPooperz, you're taking the mick and seemingly trying to silence anybody else who doesn't fall down at your feet.

Take your pompous, patronising chat elsewhere if you don't want to engage."

I assume someone must have reported it unless MNHQ are on the prowl. We should all be able to discuss/debate where we want to. I don't believe I've told anyone to go elsewhere or tried to silence anyone but happy to be contradicted if you can point out where I have, if indeed your comment about "we non-compliant posters" being silenced was even aimed at me.

The Torygraph guy is just doing another version of the minimisation we've seen about rape threats here.

If there's anything we should take from this it's that the rape threats have to stop, no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

And if they were happening to men too I'd say the same thing.

I think you're right 9while5, sorry lying, there seems to have been a divide drawn and rather than a debate people just keep repeating themselves, though I suppose it is aibu :)

It's a shame because it's an interesting and important topic.
I hope the general message that it isn't ok to send violent threats to others online and it isn't overreacting to not just brush it off but to complain about it continues to gather impetus, regardless of the odd clumsily written sentence in one news publication.

I hope the general message that it isn't ok to send violent threats to others online and it isn't overreacting to not just brush it off but to complain about it continues to gather impetus, regardless of the odd clumsily written sentence in one news publication.

I think everyone buys that one :)

The next issue is the "what" and "how" though. As I mentioned above, I do think the Torygraph did make 2 valid points:

• the potentially Orwellian nature of defining "hate-speech" (ie it probably needs an agreed and tight defintion as to what constitutes a violent threat)

• These sorts of censorship systems could have unintended consequences as they will be used by those in power for far more than this purpose. There is nothing that Governments and various other powers that be would like more than an opportunity to censor the Internet, and there is a big risk of playing into their hands here.

I also feel there has to be a balance in intent vs redress ...LP is a shlock journo, and schlock journos (of all stripes, I hasten to add) make their mark by being deliberately controversial and inflammatory. I don't like the notion that they should be insulated from the consequences of their actions. I don't know how this would be done, but I think it is an issue to be considered.

I agree whatmeworry, the devil is in the detail there.

IMHO it shouldn't be about censorship it should be about adapting our real life laws and applying them where possible to the online world I.e. Calling someone a 'specky four eyes' is rude as is telling someone to f off, but it can be dealt with via the users or moderators on a site.

Telling someone you're going to commit a crime against them and finding their address needs to be taken seriously as a crime. If the FBI can send out cease and desist letters to people who download films then I'm pretty sure the current authorities can do something about these kinds of threats. If they want to take it seriously and not use it as an excuse to control people's online activities though.

Longer term, it's about education. It seems that people sometimes don't see there's a person on the other side of the screen and this disassociation that it's not real enables them to feel justified in saying rubbish they would never say in real life.

I've seen a couple of comments on the guardian article about this where people are posing the possibility that because it is now inappropriate to make sexist/ racist/ homophobic etc comments in real life that the people who want to make them are penting them all up and venting them online. I don't know how much truth there is in this, i find it worrying though to even consider there are such angry people rattling about.

handbagCrab

I think you have a very valid point there about people not willing to voice their honest opinions in RL because of the fear (real or imagined) of legal consequences.

As society is moving in the direction of preventing people from saying almost anything because it may be 'innapropriate' or 'offensive' then - as it is impossible to police what people are thinking - other avenues for expression will be used.

To define what is and is not 'offensive' is extremely difficult.

To attempt to impose one person's or one group's opinion of what is offensive is more than impertinence, it is dangerous if that definition then involves the potential for legal consequences.