Mary Beard voiced an opinion...

[AbigailAdams]

... and received vicious misogynistic remarks as a reward.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt that women were targetted, specifically because of their sex. Mary Beard was recently on Question Time. She has experienced a horrible backlash for this. Mainly focussed around her sex and her looks, rather than what she said. Also not just her, her children as well.

Mary's hellish misogynistic internet experience

She is not alone. There really is a special type of wrath and insults saved for women. It is desgined to silence us. And this is really just a continutation on from Beachcomber's thread on women's voices being drowned (and kim's thread on MN and misogyny). It really doesn't matter about the subject matter, women aren't supposed to have opinions. Unless they of course they uphold the patriarchy.

It also raises questions about keeping anonymity, when speaking out. We shouldn't have to but when you are threatened with "we know where you live" type comments, it is easy to see why it is necessary.

I haven't really got a question, other than why should we have to put up with this shit? What can we do about it?

I think Mary did a really good thing in highlighting what happened to her and Louise Mensch involved the police and these are probably the ways to go with dealing with it. But god, it is so exhausting. So I suppose this is just a rant really.

"But that doesn't matter: the point stands that if someone is capable of photoshopping a face onto a vulva, they are also capable of realizing that is a shitty thing to do."

There are a lot of shitty people around who resent people who are better educated and more successful than themselves. Not sure that idealism will ever change that. The question is what to do (if anything) about them being given the oxygen of a public platform.

Mary, thanks for posting and thank you for being prepared to expose the abuse directed at you, I do think some of the people responsible would not dare to express these opinions without anonymity.

Its one thing to disagree with someone's opinion, its another to threaten them with violence for expressing an opinion they disagreed with or expressing an opinion at all.

Its very easy to focus on these more extreme examples and it is right to highlight that they exist. However, it needs to be in the context of also looking at the more subtle prejudice against women that still exists.

I'm not proposing idealism, though. I don't think what MB did was idealistic, either - it was just the right thing to do, and very brave.

"Unfortunately, the less well educated cannot verbalise their disagreement in academic terms and so attack ad hominem (or should that be "ad feminam"?). It is not right but it is understandable."

So why aren't men attacked in the same way?

Btw, larry, the reason I disagree with you is that I think the internet is a brilliant way of giving people who don't otherwise have much of an equal platform, a bit of space to speak. It is really fascinating. And it does have to do with anonymity - people don't automatically talk over you because they see you're female, people can't see what you look like or how you sound.

larry, we are capable of having freedom of speech and not tolerating hate. For instance, racist tweets are now removed and the police can get involved. That is the law. Racism targets people based on their race. Misogyny targets women based on their gender.

Telling a woman that she will be raped or that someone would like to stick a cock in her mouth is incitement to hatred and should be treated as a hate crime.

These are not "opinions" or "views" these are malicious and vile personal attacks.

We do it for racism, we do it for terrorism, we do it for homophobia so why not do it for misogyny? What is the difference?

Who would you report this hate crime to though? Perhaps someone should do this, take it to court if needs be!

Seeker,

I was in the top sets at school, went to Cambridge and am reasonably well spoken.

During my life, I have put up with any number of insults such as "stuck up cunt", "gay" (not that I personally consider it an insult), "short fucker", "dwarf" (I am 5'5) etc. There were also a lot of "town vs gown" violence incidents when I was studying at Cambridge. Then, more recently, "rich cunt, how would you feel if I kicked your head in".

As I said, shitty people just resent those better educated and better off. The only difference is when I was growing up, it could only be face to face as there was no social media. Not sure which is better really. I think bullies pick a victim and then choose their method of bullying. For Mary Beard the easy way in was looks-directed misogyny. Absolutely disgusting but, from the perspective of someone being bullied, it is always disgusting.

TheRhubard,

"Telling a woman that she will be raped or that someone would like to stick a cock in her mouth is incitement to hatred and should be treated as a hate crime.

These are not "opinions" or "views" these are malicious and vile personal attacks."

Totally agree with you. These are not opinions and are actionable.

"For instance, racist tweets are now removed and the police can get involved. That is the law. Racism targets people based on their race. Misogyny targets women based on their gender."

That is the law but not sure I agree with it. I do think stupid opinions are best dealt with by force of argument, not force of law. And, I say that as a Jewish looking person who reads plenty of anti semitism, so I am not entirely speaking from a position of privilege. I prefer to let idiots say their worst and then deal with it, not censor them. I do think censorship allows the oppressors to believe that they are the oppressed. JMO.

Larry- that is not exactly the same, is it? The issue here is that women get this particular sort of violent sex related abuse simply for expressing an opinion.

I don't see what education/privilege has to do with it. Sure, Prof Beard is privileged in terms of education, and by your own admission, so are you, larry. But misogyny isn't reserved for women who're successful or well educated. The language used towards you - it's interesting you single out 'gay' as a word you wouldn't see as an insult, but not 'cunt' - is really telling of what people think would most insult a man. Oh yes: it's comparing him to female genitalia.

As rhubarb says, we don't have a hate crime law that protects against gendered insults, and we need one.

Sorry, posted too soon- from your description, the media is full of men like you. Are they threatened with sexual violence on a regular basis?

LRD,

You do like picking up semantic points. I know some women want to reclaim "cunt" as a positive word. However, I think that being called a "cunt" is not the same as being called a vagina. If someone called me a vagina, I would look faintly bemused but certainly not regard it as an insult. Cunt has evolved from its original meaning to be just a nasty word for someone you despise. Same as prick, really. All insults are a bit silly if analysed semantically, they have force because of their common usage.

I am a little uncomfortable posting here now I am aware that Prof Beard is around, but I am even more uncomfortable about the undercurrent of "victim blaming" that is emerging. As if her views as expressed courted abuse.

Yes, I think semantics are fascinating. The point I am making is that 'cunt' has evolved to be 'a nasty word'. But I don't think anyone has forgotten it also means 'female genitalia'.

You'd note, too, that 'prick' isn't remotely as offensive as 'cunt'.

There are reasons for this, you know.

kim - I don't know enough about what that would mean, sorry.

seeker - spot on. And me too.

Once it is made law Larry then websites that are set up solely for the purposes of spouting hatred towards women (yes I found it unbelievable that they exist but they do) could be reported and shut down. If it is illegal I think you will find that a lot of people will think twice before opening their ignorant mouths.

I agree that a lot of these racist tweets that thick footballers throw at each other which then lands up in court at the expense of the tax payer might seem like a complete waste of money and energy. But look at it another way, ever since that man got arrested for making a jokey comment about blowing up an airport people have been thinking twice before posting. And now that they realise the police have powers to trace them and arrest them for hate speech, they are bloody careful too.

You only need a couple of examples to change the way people tweet and make them think about what they are saying and who it might affect.

Didn't someone target Tom Daley and say something about his dad? The media certainly picked up on that didn't they? Yet a woman suffers hateful abuse and threats and the papers are suddenly very quiet.

Look, this is not an ideal world and there is a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and policing hate crimes. There is no perfect solution but I think we agree that women are being targeted not because of their education or background or opinions but because they are women. That is the bottom line here. The insults make that very clear.

I was also bullied for being stick thin and I have people assume I am ignorant and thick because I have a Northern accent and live in an ex-council house. People make shit judgements every day and as a society we will never win the war against bullying but we can fight against hatred. Hatred of certain sections of society, whether they be Jewish, gay, Muslim, black or female must not be tolerated. Not in any shape or form.

We cannot afford to ignore this in the hope that it will go away. It won't.

I think Professor Beard would actually enjoy the debate and may well join in. She could certainly enlighten us on the etymology of the word "education"!

I don't think she would in any way want to censor a reasonable discussion of what should or should not be allowed to be said. I am a great admirer of hers, although I do feel that she is far better within the area of her expertise and rather strayed beyond it on QT.

I feel kinda uncomfortable speculating about what she would/wouldn't do, since she's already popped onto the thread.

FWIW, if you google, you can usually get a decent etymology (but you surely know it? ).

And yes, so what if Mary Beard is upper class with a priviledged background? I couldn't give a baboon's arsehole if she lived in a Chateau and ate swans all day, she is entitled to her opinions and views just as much as if she lived in a tent and ate worms at the bottom of your garden.

I do not base my judgement on where people come from or what their background is. I base my judgement on what comes out of their mouths.

Now let's stick to the point in question shall we and not make this about how well the ignorant judge each other.

Because obviously, Question Time participants are usually experts in all the fields raised by the questions.

Or is it just that generally men have a better grasp of politics and current affairs, and so are better qualified to comment on a wider range of topics?

Oh Larry fgs get a grip. Did I not see Johnny Rotten on QT? Perhaps he should stay within his 'field' too and not stray into voicing an opinion either? As it turns out he had quite a lot to say.

EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion and that is what QT is all about. Giving people an opinion. If everyone stuck to their 'roles' then I wouldn't be on Mumsnet talking about this.

"FWIW, if you google, you can usually get a decent etymology (but you surely know it? ). "

I have and two different ones are given. E-ducere (to lead out) and E-ducare (bring up, rear). Prof Beard would be able to expand intelligently on the differences. And, no, sadly, with my rusty O level latin, I couldn't.

And, of course Prof Beard can speak for herself. So, why are at least two posters using the dog-whistle word "victim blaming" to try to shut down discussion?