"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 .

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.

We've done rape threats now and have moved on again, its you who is attempting to deflect yet again - your posts are an exercise in Orwellian speech.

What's with your rape obsession anyway, Thunders? It really isn't the thing uppermost in most women's minds yet you don't seem to miss an opportunity on any thread to try and twist it towards rape.

I haven't read the rape bits.

On the original article it is typical of those with no good arguments to criticise a woman (or man for that matter) in terms of other areas of their life, looks etc. That just means victory for the original writer. Sometimes one's detractors prove one's case. If threats get to an illegal level then they should be stopped.

I do think freedom of speech, even freedom of idiots to say your views are useless because you're fat, is pretty important and people can learn to ignore comment of that type. Although ignoring can mean condoning things sometimes so a slight comment back is often worthwhilel. If someone comments on the German leader in a way they might not of say Gordon Brown then that's worth pointing. An FT interview of a world leader, I forget now, some worldwide organisation similar to the UN etc who is female where Gillian Tett went on and on about the poor woman's clothes and looks in a way I just never seen done for men did attract adverse comment including from me. It does sometimes matter that these things are picked up on. It's like never tolerating racism. If you allow someone else's comments of that kind you are adding to the dissemination of the views.

Not to derail the thread even further (because that would make thunder very 'frustrated' and I wouldn't do that) but IYO Xenia, can you be a housewife with a traditional division of labour at home and still be against sexism?

Or does your lifestyle make this impossible?

What if the woman prefers the mop to the cut and thrust of a career?

No, she's gorgeously dressed and very thin. This was a lady from South American which is unusual as they spend more there on cosmetic surgery than most places and she didnt' fit that mould. Peru I think.

AZZ, yes, anyone can be against sexism. The more people against it the better, even if they're male chauvanist pigs. Even if they keep 5 wives and never get up from their rug on the tent floor if they are spouting forth that the sexes should be treated equally I am more than happy to have them in my camp.

If women prefer mops to careers they have a screw loose in my view or are not very bright but that's a separate issue. Let us not go down that path.

oh, saying something as controversial as that Xenia and then saying "but let's not look at it is a bit unfair, n'estce pas? A v. long standing couple-friends of mine as it that she remains home, largely, and hubby works. She is faaar from dim, and just 'knows' what she likes from life and pursues it.

As you suggest, there are numerous ways of resisting sexism, for men and women - your issue of 'economy' re redistribution of income ( and so power) is one potent but other people find other solutions. But I am sure that argument has been had with you over your time on MN, Xenia.

I've got more academic qualifications than DH, but that's just chance/circumstance/choice, I've just never converted them into cold hard cash.

I'd say sexism/feminist issues don't really come up in my everyday life, but a lot of the time you don't notice because they're so ingrained.

I suppose that's why it's important for some women to highlight what's going on.

The classic divide has always bween those feminists who say nasty power money capitalism - let's leave that to men and we will sit at home knitting socks because we are women who love each other and don't want to get involved in tacky nasty right wing commerce v fe minists as I am who say that's very sexist and women as much as man can have and desire power and be ambitious.

The veiled woman who is not allowed by law to drive and has hd FMG might well think she is "mnaking a choice" to stay home etc as might the tyhpical british housewife but I doubt either is really making the choice she thinks she is so we need to life the veil/scales from her eye and boot her into the boardroom pronto and let Mr Husband make the choice to stay home, earn nothing and clean the loos.

So anyway, men who make rape threats against women on the internet.

Who are they?

Why do they think they can get away with it? Is it because society gives them the nod? (I'd say yes)

And what the hell is it in their psyches that makes them reach for that particular action when confronted by a woman they disagree with?

If you think about it, it's an incredibly peculiar phenomenon, who on earth when confronted with someone they disagree with thinks that reaching for violent threats is the appropriate response? Whatever happened to "I disagree"?

Perhaps they're like so many other seem to be, completely self-aborbed, with no thoughts or interest in anybody elses' views and therefore feel entitled to go off on their own agenda. Why would they need to even acknowledge anybody elses' presence or say anything at all?

I work at board level, am the main breadwinner, am fully financially independent, work at the top in a male dominated competitive industry, have a great relationship with my DH, make my own choices, earn six figures etc etc but I do think its nice that that's my choice. I don't think it's the only choice.

Just because it's right for me doesnt mean it should be every womans choice or the only valid choice I couldn't be a SAHM, but if a woman wants to do that then as long as it is her choice I don't think it is "anti-feminist".

I don't think the classic divide is to do with working / money. So far as I can tell the divide seems to be women who think their interpretation of feminism is the "right" one and anyone who doesnt subscribe to their views isn't a feminist, as though they are somehow in a position to judge other women in that way. That's what I don't like.

The Westboro Baptists are pretty sure they are Christians and are the only ones who have interpreted god and the bible in the "right" way. I would disagree with them. Doesn't make me "anti-christian". (actually I am not religious at all but you get my point)

I don't think threatening violence is self-absorbtion Lyingwitch. Quite the opposite. It's about making sure the other person knows you are there and has a strong reaction to you. Also there are plenty of self-absorbed people around, most people are to some extent, but they don't go around threatening rape just because they disagreed with a woman.

Mind you do you think derailing threads on to anything but the topic, so people who want to discuss the topic are pushed out is self-absorbed? I do.

The classic divide has always bween those feminists who say nasty power money capitalism - let's leave that to men and we will sit at home knitting socks because we are women who love each other and don't want to get involved in tacky nasty right wing commerce

Oh yes, those feminists. The sock knitting ones. Falling over them, I am.

I certainly am with catgirl then as I've never said you can't be a feminist if you do XYZ. I've said them ore we introduce the fold the better, even if they are wives numbers 2 - 8 of an Arab Sheikh. They are all welcome. In some ways those are the ones to get as they may influence their daughters to do more than be wife number 8 or whatever.

I don't join groups and most committees can be a waste of time as people male and female can spend so long talking about the nature of the group and its aims they waste all the time they had. Plenty of groups have that problem.

Forget the group and just support equality under the law and in the domestic sphere for men and women.

I don't really come across rape threats online, but clearly some people do. I've certainly had a lot of people criticising my own views and resorting to rather silly language which just makes them look a bit stupid. It doesn't bother me at all. However that is different from someone who might carry out a threat.

I do think we need to be very careful about criminalising language too much. It's a trick road to go down and we've gone too far down it in my view. Silly lads egging each other on to riot on twitter or on line I don't particularly feel ought to be sought out. It's just words.

Perhaps we need to teach our children better the old adage - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

Threats of violence are already illegal Xenia.

It just depends whether the police and CPS have the capacity to track down the miscreants and then prosecute.

thunder; I agree with you - what has happened to 'I don't agree with you' - why does having an difference of opinion provoke such anger in some people? people who wish death on others just for saying things they don't agree with, are obviously not right in the head, but what do you do? The Internet is full of nutters.

Well I think the first thing to do is to talk about it. To bring it to light which is what is happening here. I think these men rely on the fact that women won't fight back, won't even say what's happening to them.

Well I think the first thing to do is to talk about it. To bring it to light which is what is happening here. I think these men rely on the fact that women won't fight back, won't even say what's happening to them

Actually, I think the biggest surprise re the LP article is that its 2011 and the Journos still think its news. Just shows how few of them know much about the Internet.

Well I think that people who feel more strongly than "I don't agree with you", to the point where they are issuing death or rape threats, are deeply, deeply threatened either by what someone is saying, or by who that person is.

Lots of American racists are absolutely furious that Obama, a black man, has the temerity to be president. Not particularly because of his policies - though they don't like them, obviously - but just because he is a black man and as far as they are concerned, he has absolutely no bloody right to be in that whitehouse. As far as they are concerned, it's an aberration against nature - everyone knows that presidents are white men, and for a woman or a black man to come and turn that upside down, is deeply deeply threatening to them as it indicates a threat to their way of life; it is a signifier that the world has changed and they feel immensely threatened by it.

In the same way lots of misogynists simply can't bear to see a woman step out of line. And stepping out of line, is constituted by her saying anything they don't like, or seeming to be anything they don't like, or being in a place where she has no right to be. And in public, being listened to, is a place women have no right to be as far as they are concerned, unless she is saying something they want to hear.

- 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.

My experience too, Whatmeworry. I've been posting on the internet for ooh, 15 years now and posters who are shits tend to throw the crazy around quite a lot. Thinking of my posting experience on another forum, 2 separate posters made vile sexual misogynistic comments to me, but also violent threats to other posters, one of them also made horrible homophobic comments. Oh, I've just remembered another sexist poster who was also a racist. I don't think that you can assume that people who post violent threats to women are otherwise restrained on the internet.

When I say violent threats to other posters, I mean men. The same posters who were shitty to me were shitty to men too.

'most committees can be a waste of time as people male and female can spend so long talking about the nature of the group and its aims they waste all the time they had.'

I'm compelled to post as I feel it will add dimension to the thread

- 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.

My experience too, Whatmeworry. I've been posting on the internet for ooh, 15 years now and posters who are shits tend to throw the crazy around quite a lot. Thinking of my posting experience on another forum, 2 separate posters made vile sexual misogynistic comments to me, but also violent threats to other posters, one of them also made horrible homophobic comments. Oh, I've just remembered another sexist poster who was also a racist. I don't think that you can assume that people who post violent threats to women are otherwise restrained on the internet.

My experience too. Also not restricted to men. Seen the odd woman do it too. Only common factor is it seems to be people who are unable to articulate feelings or thoughts into words easily and struggle when they have their views challenged in anyway as they see it as a personal attack. Not a surprise that journos are therefore a target. They are unable to say i disagree because...

AZZ I want to thank you for that amazingly brilliant link. Made me smile. Lots.

These are funny......
and this

I don't think anyone on line has ever said they'd rape or physically hurt me. The women who say I must be a man because I happen to be reasonab ly successful or not be like what they think a classic woman is like or mad don't really both me.

Yes I know threat of violence are illegal. I am just a bit concerned that we've gone a bit too far in penalising written word and I'd rather there were fewer laws restricting what is written although it seems unlikely anyone is going to agree with me on this thread.