"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 .

whatmeworry Do agree that there is a fine and delicate line between hate speech vs free speech (and proportionality when dealing with hate speech - as handbagCrab mentions moderation online as opposed to every insult being a crime).

I wonder whether there is just a gap between the definitions contained in the Public Order Act 1986 (race/religion/sexual orientation but not gender), Criminal Justice & PO Act 1994 (general prohibition against causing alarm or distress) and the Malicious Communications Act 1998 (prohibition against sending or delivering letters of other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety).

I was surprised to find the PO Act 1986 doesn't cover abuse based on gender so maybe the gap is there (and would cover abuse directed at both men for being men and women for being women).

Having discovered there is no law to protect against abuse on the basis of gender (unless I have missed it somewhere - happy to be corrected) I think sprogger sums it up very well waaaaay upthread:

"It's time the law started taking hate speech against women as seriously as it takes anti-semitism and racism."

Discrimination laws such as the Equality Act apply in the provisions of goods & services and employment (and other limited defined circumstances) but wouldn't cover threats to rape or threats of violence.

The law protects against abuse on the basis of gender in exactly the same way as it does for race or religion

example

"It's time the law started taking hate speech against women as seriously as it takes anti-semitism and racism."

It does.

Or see what the CPS say

]here

Having discovered there is no law to protect against abuse on the basis of gender (unless I have missed it somewhere - happy to be corrected)

or here

or here

So what happens then when people get anti semitic or racist abuse and/ or threats on line?

In one way the medium doesn't matter - it's the fact that there's so much nastiness in people's heads. It will out some way, an insult is not a threat, and a threat is not an actual realised attack but it all comes from the same vile pit.

Thank you catgirl will read when I get back - got to dash out just now - but v grateful for the links cheers

i don't care what they think either, but their opinions colour their actions, how far the actions go is a matter for the individual, many variables, it's concerning.

If the laws are there then that's great and they should be used against hate speech. The publicity this topic is getting may make some people think twice before they send another email threatening to rape or kill someone if they knew there were real consequences.

You're right Pendeen, some folks will take offence to anything! And some things that are very offensive to some groups are neither here nor there to others. I guess a line has to be drawn as to what is generally offensive and what is specifically offensive to an individual. But no one has the right to deliberately offend others in order to make them feel bad or to get them to shut up. I don't think it's Orwellian to prosecute people who make offensive racist comments online for example.

If people are so angry that they can't express offensive sexual, violent or racist (to name a few) thoughts in real life or online then I think they need help tbh, I don't think they should be given an outlet for free expression online because free speech has to include hate speech to be free or that it's pc gone mad or anything!

I was particularly perturbed by the story told here about how the police are probably not the people to go to as they are indulging in sexual threats themselves

"Nina Power, an academic researcher, was subjected to similar abuse on a blog popular with serving police officers after writing a piece about police violence. One commenter, called "PC Lightyear", opined: "Nina seems quite pretty. After we disband the Police, let's see pretty Nina walk through a sh1tty estate in say Elephant n Castle, Camberwell, Tottenham, Brixton, Lewisham, Wembley . . . and see how well her idea works out when the Gangstas decide they deserve to have her as a toy." [screengrab here]

Another chipped in: "She won't need to go for a walk -- once the Slag realised we weren't coming out of the nick, they'd go looking for her." A third: "Without a big, tough man to protect her, all her idiotic blatherings and demands to be treated as an equal will be for nothing when she is getting used as a ganstas 'toy'."

When one commenter says that such comments are unpleasant, a pious reply is forthcoming: "Lightyear isn't wishing it on her -- simply pointing out the harsh realities of the real world, away from the ivory towers of academia."

Power says: "Note not only the insane misogyny but also the racial/class stereotyping and the fantasy that rape is something that will necessarily happen in a world without police -- and especially, apparently, to women who criticise the police."
"

I didn't even notice that a post of mine had been deleted, PartyPooperz, I wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that it was you who reported it anyway. I think you'd be honest enough to tell me if you want to report me.

I don't want to silence anybody - or attempt to - and I don't want to feel as if I'm being silenced either. I think women do far better when they can talk and interract without a divide and I suppose, if we're going to be on a chatboard, that's what we ought to try to be doing. I really hate bad feeling and I think that if the issues were stripped to the bare bones, we'd probably see that our views (all of us) are not so different. A bit of tolerance - and query if necessary - goes a long way to some kind of understanding.

I do have strong views but I'm not unshakeable. I've permanently changed my views on some things that I thought were entrenched. Even if I hold apposite views to somebody else, the last thing I would want to do is offend them. That's not who I am and it's not how I want to spend my chat time.

OK I've had to spend time having a real life the last couple of days so have just caught up, but have to come back on this: "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."

That is exactly the way misogynists speak to women in the blogosphere. I repeated it verbatim so that everyone can get some idea of the level of hatred the men who target women, feel for us. And some posters here pretend to be shocked and victorian maiden aunt when I say it, but when a man says it to a woman blogger after having told her he knows where she lives, it's just internet rough and tumble, no different to calling someone a bald knob. Oh really.

And another thing: this horrible assertion that if a woman you personally like gets targeted, you'd get to the barricades for her, but not for Laurie Penney. That strikes me as really awful and tbh, morally immature. I can't stand Melanie Philips, I think she is a judgemental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, joyless, PITA. But I wouldn't have to think twice about standing in solidarity with her if she received threats of violence based on her sex or the fact that she's Jewish. Of course I would, what sort of person would I be if I recognised that something is wrong but was happy to let it happen to someone I disliked? I just don't understand the mentality that says if you don't like someone, it is not an issue if they are being subjected to harassment, abuse or violence. Most of us have understood by about the age of 15, that it's irrelevant if you like someone or not, right is right and wrong is wrong. It's a tad disconcerting that mothers on a parenting site don't recognise that.

I can't talk for anyone else Eleanor, but how I feel about abuse on the internet has nothing to do with me being a woman, and absolutely nothing at all to do with the forum I'm on.

What is it you think mothers on a parenting site should be like?

Have you a list of characteristics you'd prefer?

You know you don't even need to have children to post

My beef with the article is that it narrowly focuses on just one group, as though there's a divide between men and women when it comes to getting abuse.

That's why posters have brought in examples of men receiving hate mail, not because it's a competition of who gets the worst shit.

I find it difficult to accept that anyone wouldn't try to stop all abuse wherever they find it.

Do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage for men who receive these types of messages?

And another thing: this horrible assertion that if a woman you personally like gets targeted, you'd get to the barricades for her, but not for Laurie Penney. That strikes me as really awful and tbh, morally immature....Most of us have understood by about the age of 15, that it's irrelevant if you like someone or not, right is right and wrong is wrong. It's a tad disconcerting that mothers on a parenting site don't recognise that.

That was me.

And this comes just when we were all getting along so nicely too :o

Lets just go back to the very reasonable conclusions that we all came to a few posts above, shall we....

But there is a divide between men and women who get abuse. Men don't get abuse just for being men. Women get abuse because they are women -they get gender based abuse. Just like there is a divide between black people and white people who get abuse. On the whole, white people don't get race-based abuse, while black people do. Though this may not be any worse on an individual basis, on a societal basis it is a reflection of a wider problem which most people acknowledge still exists - racism - but are remarkably unwilling to acknowledge when it comes to sexism.

"I find it difficult to accept that anyone wouldn't try to stop all abuse wherever they find it."

What? I'm reading that a lot of people would only try to stop abuse, if the person who was being abused, was someone they personally liked or admired.

"Do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage for men who receive these types of messages?"

Of course. And most people out there, feel far more compassion and outrage on their behalf, because after all, they haven't brought it upon themselves the way those uppity women have - they have the right to speak out, that's natural, they are not intruders who should be apologetic about expressing their opinion, it's outrageous that their opinions are met with violent threat, whereas for women, well, they ought to have been a bit more careful.

A bit like when a man gets mugged. The fact that he was a bit pissed and down a dark alley, is utterly irrelevant, of course no one had the right to rob him, the idea that he's partially responsible because he could have gone the long but safer walk round and taken 20 extra minutes to get home, is neither here nor there...whereas a woman in a mini skirt.... well...

The more I think about it, the more I think that mini-skirt analogy is really excellent.

Good night.

You know you don't even need to have children to post

Chuckles. I saw a particularly vile post from a woman having a go at someone today for daring to have an opinion that might not be viewed as childcare friendly, and daring to say it on a forum which has 'mum' in the title. Its no longer there. I have to say as someone who normally is uncomfortable in the presence of women and doesn't have kids, I find views on this forum very odd at times and very matriarchal which is unsurprising. Its good at times, but I also feel its bad too. Its certainly an eye opener thats for sure.

Having been called an anti-feminist on this thread, upon reflection after talking to a few females friends about it, I think I'm happy with that. I'll pigeonhole myself as something else.

You don't get on with women and you're not a Mum ... And yet you registered and post on here. Man, that takes self-flagellation to whole new levels.

Men don't get abuse just for being men. Women get abuse because they are women

Men and women get abuse on the internet because there are nasty-minded shits out there who want to make them feel bad. It has not been shown that women get targeted with abuse soley because they are women and not because of anything else that they have done that brings them to the abuser's attention, e.g. writing something that the abuser disagrees with. There may be some of that, but in the case of LP who appears to be controversial, I don't think so.

The abuse that women get is more likely to be gendered just as the abuse a gay person gets is more likely to be homophobic - because it is an easy way to belittle someone, score points or scare them. And this is a reflection of a problem in wider society, not necessarily that women receive abuse in the first place.

The transgender blogger (can't remember the link) who was talking about their hate mail didn't say that they didn't get any as a man and suddenly started getting it as a woman, but that the nature of it changed. And this is because the target changed and so the tactics changed.

There was a comment on one of the articles about this that said 'not sure if this is sexism or just trolling' and I'm not sure either. People mentioned a Catholic vicar's wife getting horrible abuse despite writing quite uncontroversial things, but her position in the church could well be an issue for some.

I think it's a more complicated issue to untangle than 'poor women, picked on again'. And saying that men receive far more compassion and outrage for the abuse that they receive is a bit bizarre when there seemed to be a complete ignorance that they were even receiving any.
Here is an article today about Robbie Savage and the vandalism, abuse and death threats he suffered as a footballer. Comments include 'Not surprised as he's such an eyesore' 'So what?' and 'Yet another strategically placed sob-story to get us to vote for him on Strictly'. I can just feel the compassion from here.

But there is a divide between men and women who get abuse. Men don't get abuse just for being men. Women get abuse because they are women -they get gender based abuse. Just like there is a divide between black people and white people who get abuse. On the whole, white people don't get race-based abuse, while black people do

[Yawn].

Eleanor, read the last 700 posts, it really has all been said already.

"I think it's a more complicated issue to untangle than 'poor women, picked on again'."

Er, yes, agreed.

Something else I found interesting but it was too late to pursue last night. Someone talked about how their life had been completely trammelled by the possibility of rape, that they didn't walk down dark alleys, didn't wear exactly what they want when they want, get a taxi home instead of walking, etc. etc. And a whole load of people came on and told her how sorry they feel for her and implied that she was a bit paranoid and hysterical.

And yet, whenever there's a rape thread on here, a bunch of people come on and say they do exactly the same things and that any woman who doesn't is irresponsible and risking her own safety for the sake of a silly feminist principle. But they don't recognise it as a restriction on their lives, they see it as normal life, just what you do. And then they pretend that men have just as many restrictions on their lives, because men don't go in dark alleys etc. Except that men don't have as many restrictions, they take basic safety precautions, but they don't subconsciously have to think before every evening out, or before they park their car before work etc. how they can avoid being raped beforehand.

Women get told that if they don't take the precautions they "ought" to take to avoid getting raped, they're irresponsible and it's their fault if they get raped. And if they do take the precautions they're urged to and acknowledge that it's not just normal life, it's because of the fear of rape they are told they're paranoid and hysterical.

And on that note, I'm off to work. I'll park my car in the space where it takes 5 minutes longer to drive to but where I feel safer because it's more residential and less lonely and pretend that my male colleagues do the same because that's just basic precautions, innit?

"I think it's a more complicated issue to untangle than 'poor women, picked on again'."

That's a very sneery way to describe people objecting to women having rape threats made against them.

"[Yawn]."

And that's just rude and dismissive. I take it it's feminists making these remarks given that it's the feminists who are supposed to be the rude silencers.

Thunder, is your persistent misinterpretation of posts deliberate? I notice I'm not the only one getting frustrated with this.

ER, glad you agree with that snippet, what about the rest of my post which you ignored?