"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 .

The imbalance of power in the scenario is between between rapists and their victims, not between all men and women. There most certainly is an imbalance of power between a rapist and a victim.

Do you really think that those who threaten rape or actually commit rape, and the feminists who stand up to them are equal "extremists" AgentZigzag?

Do you think someone who objects to homophobia is an extremist? That was my question. (Also putting someone in prison who commits homophobic violence sounds like a good idea).

Social pressure is often backed up by law. See drink-driving laws, smoking laws for benign examples, and laws against say racially motivated attacks for a less benign example.

I only see the people who threaten sexual violence and a feminist interpretation as opposite ends of the spectrum in the context of this threads subject thunderbolt.

With other posters who've tried to broaden the subject out into maybe looking into other areas as an example of a less extreme view.

If the person who objected to a homophobics behaviour only looked at explaining it in terms of sexuality it would be similar.

But like if you looked at a bullys behaviour, it couldn't be fully explained away with 'they don't like people with glasses, and that's why they call you specky four eyes'. Bullies will pick on any weakness they can perceive, you'd have to look at a whole range of reasons to get at why they do it.

So saying this journo is getting threats of sexual violence as part of a wider aim of excluding women from partaking in certain subjects in the public arena, doesn't ring true.

I don't believe that's the cause of the mens behaviour, so you won't find a solution if that's the only explanation you explore.

What do you think is the cause, agent?

because in a way I do agree that the cause is the most important thing - I don't think they are saying 'we will rape you if you don't be quiet' and nor do I think that's how it's received.

But I find it profoundly disturbing that the knee jerk reaction of the idiot to a woman saying thing is I WILL RAPE YOU AND I HOPE YOU GET RAPED. I think that has a lot to say about society, none of it good.

Your tortured logic is ridiculous and doesn't relate to anything I've actually argued

Actually it does, but you don't understand the issues..

It seems pretty simple to me:

The cause of a racist attack is the attacker's racism and his choice to use violence

The cause of a homophobic attack is the attacker's homophobia and his choice to use violence

The cause of a misogynistic attack is the attacker's misogyny and his choice to use violence

In all three cases, it's the sources of the bigotry that anti-racists, gay rights, and feminists have challenged. In all three cases those groups have made enormous strides in a) demonstrating the reality of bigoted violence and in b) challenging that violence and bigotry. They have done it specifically, they haven't ignored what is in front of their noses and they have braved being called "extremists" by being prepared to declare that this kind of particularised and targeted hatred exists.

If there's a better way Agent ZigZag, you have knowledge that anti-racists, gay rights activists and feminists haven't found. And to be honest I think those three groups, along with all the other groups who fight for the rights of minorities are the reason why the society we live in today is more civilised and less repressive than it was say forty years ago.

'So saying this journo is getting threats of sexual violence as part of a wider aim of excluding women from partaking in certain subjects in the public arena, doesn't ring true."

And yet that is the outcome. Women are either intimidated away from speaking up, have to develop hugely thick skins to deal with the rape threats, or find themselves toning down their arguments in order to appease the bullies, something you spoke of approvingly up thread.

If you think that intimidating women off the internet by using intimidatory tactics is an unintended consequence of something else, what is it that you think these men are trying to achieve AgentZigZag?

The other thing that rather undermines your argument is that quite a lot of these men actually say to the women they are threatening directly to shut up, be quiet, leave the internet etc. So it seems like it's what they want (women to be silenced), even if you know their motivations better than them.

It's extreme if you take extreme to mean only focusing on one thing Helvetica, and if you want to know why they're doing it, how will you know if you don't listen to them, or even ask the question?

If I was to imagine the kind of person who'd send a threatening message, they would be extraordinarily angry (not necessarily at the person in the firing line) and very frustrated at not being able to change the way that person thinks.

Maybe they don't have other outlets for their anger/frustration, maybe they do have other outlets and the messages are a continuation of other aggressive behaviour.

Whichever it is, whatever compells them to choose to do this, more people need to be connected to the discussion, but to do that (generic) 'you' have to tailor that discussion to make them want to listen.

Everyone needs to hear and understand the discussion.

But a lot of people just see 'shouty feminist' in an article and switch off.

Like it, don't like it, it's the truth.

AZZ

Its like no one can work out why this thread alienated me and turned me off. If it does that to someone who feels themselves to be, at heart, a feminist then how is that going to engage with wider parts of society?

A point made pages back about flame wars does leave a lot of people going "so?" when they have had some pretty nasty threats, regardless of what they have in their pants.

You bring the majority along with the idea of change. You don't do it as a slap in the face of the majority.

The whole thing just looks like its trying to create division and be deliberately divisive. Which completely defeats the point to me. Not when theres a pile of other people who are more likely to support your cause if you broaden the remit to all forms of violence and intimidation.

Pragmatism is not a bad word. Its not compromise.

Agent ZigZag, can I check that I'm following you clearly.

Are you saying that because someone reads an article by a "shouty feminist" that hasn't been "tailored correctly" to connect them to it, they switch off and start issuing rape threats.

That it's the content of the discussion that leads to the rape threats?

And that people have to start finding a way to connect the rape threateners to the discussion?

No she's not saying that at all thunder. Not even close.

"You bring the majority along with the idea of change. You don't do it as a slap in the face of the majority."

How is thinking that those men on the internet who issue rape threats and other kinds of violent misogyny to women need to be stopped offering a slap in the face to the majority?

My assumption is that the majority aren't actually aware that this stuff is going on. It's rarely talked about. I'd have thought that the majority would be pretty much in agreement that rape threats were intolerable and not to be supported.

Also who do you mean by the majority, women are the majority.

Well that's why I asked, for clarification quietly.

It is confusing though because AgentZigZag has said already that we need to offer more understanding to men who issue rape threats to women and talk to them without emotion and listen to them too.

Thunder I had a 20 odd page argument with you the other day, in which you twisted everything and were unable to actually read what anyone else said.

I'm not about to repeat it.

You carry on though.

"I'd have thought that the majority would be pretty much in agreement that rape threats were intolerable and not to be supported. "

I'd have thought that the majority would be pretty much in agreement that death threats to men were intolerable and not to be supported....but the mere mention of them brings out a shout of 'ofgs not the menz' from certain quarters.

That, I imagine, is the slap in the face to someone who might be supportive.

Oh my god, fine by me quietlyafraid. My heart sank when I saw you were on this thread.

quietly, you are not the only one with that experience.

That's exactly what I mean quietly, it's not a weakness to step out of the remits of a theory/movements ideas and take a look in from the outside.

hehe, no that's not what I meant thunder and you bloody know it

The 'shouty feminist' article isn't going to be tailored to an audience that contains these men (unless it is purely written to goad them) the author and the reader in this case aren't connected, and probably don't want to be tbf.

But the aim of the author isn't to resolve and stop the behaviour of the men, it's only describing it.

I'm really saying that if anyone does want to stop it, it ain't going to be with a 'shouty feminist' article, so feminism isn't going to change anything if they do want resolution but aren't prepared to change their methods.

That means it's up to other, less focused (or extreme) routes to bring to two ends of the spectrum together.

But the way you support someone who has experienced a rape threat is "That's terrible, that shouldn't happen", not "bad things happens to men too"

It's like when people talk about racism - you don't say "but bad things happen to white people too". It doesn't actually help or support anybody or move the discussion forward.

It is actually possible to focus on one subject at a time.

not the only one by far quietly

Thunder, I don't believe that this thread is supporting someone who has experienced a rape threat, rather a discussion of the phenomenon. A phenomenon which, as has been previously mentioned, is a subset of a wider phenomenon of internet abuse.

thunders, you are being perfectly clear. That others are perhaps not so tight in their language isn't your problem. That's not twisting, that's reading as it's written.

"I'd have thought that the majority would be pretty much in agreement that rape threats were intolerable and not to be supported. "

Weird, isn't it? What's with the shrugging at all the shit that happens? There is next to fuck all on here about the men who post this stuff to women, but lots about the women. How does that work? Has the cult of free speech (which is a US thing, not a UK one) become so powerful that only those with the thickest skin are able to voice their opinion? And that's OK?

Indeed Helvetica, as I think I mentioned three days ago, it is a shame that the article chosen as the OP wasn't a better written one. I don't think any one has the right to dictate the direction a thread takes.

'My assumption is that the majority aren't actually aware that this stuff is going on. It's rarely talked about.'

But why is that??

A feminist might think it's because society is dominated by men and it's men who call the shots/decide what messages get through.

But honestly, I think you're putting women down there.

Women are quite able to understand and act, if they choose.

So why aren't women, and men, listening to what people like the journo in the article are saying?

Because they're not connecting with them.

They're not saying it in a way that's meaningful to be digested by your average man/woman in the street who maybe don't care about feminism or have a stereotyped image of the movement.

Nothing to do with lack of compassion, but to do with the one track message, and if you don't agree with the specifics you're condemned as on the 'other side.'