"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 .

Charbon, I have already posted that I suspect a large part of how this thread has gone is down to the choice of article by the OP.

You want a bigger picture? Who do you think is throwing this violent abuse around? Do you think it's men or women in the main? Do you think it's evenly split? Is it a reflection and/or continuation of real world violence, do you think? Or perhaps you think that it is women who are being brave enough at once remove to make rape threats against women whose writing they disagree with?

It's not a narrow lense. It's just not a fudged lense.

Yes you did, but I don't think that explains it entirely. I agreed with whoever said that if Melanie Phillips wrote an article about receiving anti-semetic abuse, much as many people dislike her and her writing, I still think most people would say the threats and abuse were wrong - and wouldn't infer that she should tone down her articles or point out that other minority groups receive threats as well.

I'm a feminist. And yet on this thread I feel like if I say that, I'll be told I'm not, because I'm not approaching this topic in 'the right way'.

Not just me feeling like this then?

Charbon maybe I'm really odd. I do like to challenge arguments, I freely admit that, and I freely admit to often seeing the world through different eyes to others.

Or maybe I've just spent too much time on the internet. Maybe it says something about some of the strange places I've hung out online.

Or maybe it says that other people aren't asking as many questions about this as they should about how widespread it is. I just CAN'T see this as purely a problem faced by women journalists. Not when I've seen first hand widespread abuse and threats of violence to a whole range of people. Not when there stuff like kids are getting emotionally bullied on FB and getting threats of one kind or another. My husband has had threats of violence in the last month. This is a bigger issue. It turns me off hearing about how this is just about rape and gender. Its not.

If you want to throw the thing about clashing personalities in, then fine, but my argument is still the same as it was on the first few pages of the thread - that intimidation and threats are a part of hidden internet culture across the board. And has been for years. I have no idea why its taken so long for it to become something that female journalists want to write about. The whole thing totally bemuses me. It could have been done 10 years ago or more.

Perhaps its the rise of more and more social networking and people becoming braver and more brazen in their abuse. I don't know. I don't have the answers, but I think we should be asking more questions.

No, QuietlyAfraid, you're not the only one at all. I've agreed with NobleGiraffe's posts also. It seems that unless you fall into the staunch feminist line, for which there is no discussion, only doctrine, your opinion doesn't count.

I think there has been an 'unflouncing' too. Posting style makes me think so anyway.

I think in my first post on this thread, I said that in the normal course of events a thread about this on a site predominantly occupied by women, would have been over in a day, with 99.9% of posts agreeing that gendered abuse is disgusting and supporting the writer for exposing it

I disagree, and the reason it has hit 900 posts is because the writer was touching on a lot of issues apart from gendered abuse, and the way she did it was pretty poor which didn't help.

Lying - you seem utterly determined to play the victim on this thread. Why?

Why does your opinion not count? Just because a sub-set of people disagree with it? There is also a subset who very much do agree with you. Surely this is the nature of discussion forums, and will characterise pretty much any thread on here; certainly any thread in AIBU!

Who exactly is trying to silence you? I have followed this entire thread from the beginning, and I can't see it. I have seen two very polarised sides to the debate, some tempers lost, some shouting and a great deal of frustration. But not from one side any more than the other. I have also seem some very calm and measured responses. Again, from both sides.

I am not part of any feminist clique and I do not fall into any staunch feminist line. I don't feel like my opinion doesn't count, though.

ah unflouncing. Yes, there has I'm sure. Well spotted, lying.

The only unflouncing I have noticed is by Catgirl, but I'm guessing you guys are talking about a name-changer?

I've been thinking a lot about this and I think there are two different issues here.

1. Women are taken less seriously than men when they write on the internet - like what someone (sorry can't remember who!) mentioned upthread about being taken more seriously when you've got a male sounding name. Very sad and clearly a feminist issue which I think most of us can agree on.

1. The use of sexual threats. I reckon this is mostly people trying to hit you where it hurts - for women that's rape threats, for men that's death threats because of the homophobia that LyingWitch mentioned (or rape threats towards female family members as with Bannatyne). I think people have a more visceral reaction to sexual threats than to death threats even. There's just something really, really nasty about it. It's possible that people make sexual threats not because LP's a woman, just because it's a good way to scare her. In this case it's not really fuelled by misogynism and I think that's what a lot of the poster are arguing when they say it's not a feminist issue.

On the other hand, could you really bring yourself to say those disgusting things without an element of women-hate fuelling it? I really don't know. I honestly can't get into the mindset of someone who thinks it's OK to make either death threats or sexual threats to a real, live human being.

On the other hand, could you really bring yourself to say those disgusting things without an element of women-hate fuelling it? I really don't know. I honestly can't get into the mindset of someone who thinks it's OK to make either death threats or sexual threats to a real, live human being

I don't think they necessarily are, for 2 reasons:

• look how easily/ often people get incensed on MN, and say nasty things - but I think very few are actual woman haters.

• my experience over many years on the Net is it's typically the same posters who kick off at anyone who they get frustrated with.

The only unflouncing I have noticed is by Catgirl, but I'm guessing you guys are talking about a name-changer?

Ooo Who? I did think two of the more recent and abrasive posters looked much the same - is that it? It's very sad that people Want to do this.

Do you think noblegiraffe, it's because it would be the same as going on to a thread about gay and lesbian people suffering homophobic abuse and saying "but women get attacked too you know". It's just difficult to see how an interjection like that adds to the topic in hand or is supportive of the people getting hurt

How is it not supportive to say "you are not alone"? Unless you are determined to wallow in your own misogyny surely its good to know this is a bigger issue.

The noted 'unflouncer' is tunderboltsandlightning - the unpleasantness of some of her posts ( rape apologist accusations/ general bullying/deliberate re-editing of other's posts etc) has made her stick out a mile to me and at least two other people I know of.

The thread is I think concerned with an important issue, tho' the contents of the OP and the initial article hasn't provided the best platform to build on.

No victim here SlinkingOutsideInSocks. What terms you use.

Generally, name-calling is used with with abandon by feminists really, aren't they? Misogyny? Women-haters? Any differing viewpoint, even a mildly differing one is treated with suspicion and the 'perpetrator' will be talked over and ignored. It doesn't make somebody a victim, just excludes, as it's intended to.

Whatmeworry I think you're right. These people just say these things without thinking about how they might be perceived beyond "this'll (emotionally) hurt this person". It's just when it's so graphic it can seem so calculating... but then I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who is awful with conflict and dishing out insults, just get all flustered.

I've thought about this some more (not that it means my thoughts are any more thought out!)

I think that the focus on abuse women are getting would be more straightforward to get behind if the abuse men were getting was being dealt with and the abuse women were getting was minimised and dismissed. As it stands it looks like any kind of abuse anyone is getting on the Internet is being seen as par for the course and I think that's the attitude that needs challenging.

I think that women (and some men) getting abuse because of their gender is a subset of both Internet abuse and that of abuse in wider society. It seems that within the wider debate these two areas are getting lumped together which makes it hard to move on from everyone agreeing that rape and death threats are bad. I don't just mean on here but in other discussions as well.

I don't know if you can listen to/ reason with people who think women aren't important enough to listen to, because they won't listen! But I imagine there is a vast middle ground of people who, once they've had things spelt out to them, may think twice before being abusive online or at least be cautious if they know they can get prosecuted. I have no idea as to how you can stop people having these thoughts in the first place though.

There seems a real effort here to get this thread off its topic - violent misogyny directed towards women writing on the internet, in particular rape threats, and on to anything else but that.

It's often the way threads like this go and it's one of the reasons why feminists get frustrated.

thunderboltsandlightning... Do you really think that people are making an effort to get the thread off the original topic? I just can't see that as a default, that's really one-lane thinking in my mind. I'm not saying that it's useful when posters are like grasshoppers jumping hither and thither but sometimes a comment can spark another thought on a slightly different point, which sparks another one and so on.

I would say that it's unintentional if indeed it's changing the subject at all.

And that's why discourse with feminists is so frustrating and offputting thunder, because only certain things are 'allowed' to be discussed without getting hassle, and who's going to volunteer to get shit when they don't have to?

It's inflexible with no room for growth or new ideas, where do you go from there once everything's been said and everyone with a fresh view has been excluded?

I don't know about anyone else, but my thoughts are my own and I won't be told by anyone what I should or shouldn't be posting (within reason), if I think other things are involved in threats of sexual violence I'll say what they are.

Who are you to define the boundaries of the thread? (I'm fighting the urge to say 'You're not the boss of me' Father Damo-like )

I think you can tackle this from a feminist viewpoint or an Internet abuse viewpoint. Tackling it from a feminist viewpoint only seems to be getting people's backs up so the debate doesn't go anywhere. I've had a look at the guardian articles and comments and the debate is really similar and ends up being derailed because of the same thing.

If the abuse of men was outlawed and the abuse of women was seen as ok then it would be worth doggedly pursuing a feminist line. This is not the case though and if anything is to improve I think at this stage it needs to be looked at as a whole issue of online abuse rather than focussing on the misogynistic aspects of the abuse. It doesn't matter if others don't agree with me though.

I was also thinking it's great that it's women who have brought this issue into the light to be discussed as it shows that we aren't to be cowed by online threats and we're willing to make a stand to make the Internet a more inclusive arena for people. In this sense women can lead the way in improving the situation for all groups, which would benefit everyone.

If others want to focus on the aspects of misogyny then that's fine too but we can do both of those things at the same time surely?

thunderbolts Absolutely right. Any topic will be more important than a topic focussing on women, particularly if it involves criticising men.

I am afraid I have not read the whole thread or the original one. I am a feminist. I tend not to use that phrase as it does not seem to help. I just say I am in favour of equal rights under the law and fairness at home and very few Englishmen would disagree with that.

I certanily get a lot of adverse comments from women on mumsnet who get very het up that I happen not to have "female" views about a lot of topics, that I dare to want power and am ambitious in career terms, a capitalist, libertarian flat taxer who thinks women do a lot better whenchallenged than subject to ah poor poor you have a cuddle, "no your bottom doesn't look big in that dress" kind of rubbish some women come out with.

Women come in all types.

However the facts are that across this planet 90% of crime is by men and most war made my men. Most domestic violence is done by men. Plenty of men are against that and we are very lucky that there has never been a time in history when violence has been so little (yes that might shock you but look up the stats and I am as ever right).

Some men (and indeed women) put women down with views by talking about their body or discounting the view. The way to win these things is outearn the men and seize the power, get not just 30% female on boards but 60% on some. Get out there and be a majority not an at home ironing shirts housewife servant class.

I certainly wouldn 't give two seconds to feminist in fighting, nor male infighting for that matter about what rules to a club there might be etc. Ignore that. The original article said there had been vitriolic comment against her articles. Of course she ought to write about that. We want freedom of the press.

I often wonder what makes some of us more robust than others. Why would things said against me on line be water off a duck's back as it's only words and for others they are at their hankies in tears? Perhaps we need women to toughen up and give as good as they get or just ignore the bad stuff unless of course it's violence, threats etc The man who says you're fat is probably obese himself (and anyone fat would be better off normal weight anyway so take the critcisim on board and eat fewer cakes or stay fat if you like fat).

One of the good things about MN threads IS their habit of weaving around a bit, as one issues sparks the synapses onto another related issue. Besides for this particualr thread it's been going since Noah was a lad so there's been plenty of opportunity, n'est ce pas?

In my view the most important thing is action

1. Never letting sexism go by - always comment even if simply nicely by saying you do not agree; or when a male work colleague says his wife is expecting ask which of them will look after it etc etc

1. Avoid sexism in your own domestic set ups.

1. Outearn men and have fun at work and get promotion - the most fun way of all of eradicating sexism. Seize proper power. Not the power to wield a amop and make a pathetic unpaid choice to be a skivy as if that were some kind of exercise of supposed female choice, but seize the chance to be the leading surgeon rather than the care home operative.