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.

seeker - touche (no, I don't know how to do the accent thing ).

Its like the furore over Hilary Clintons hair, lack of make up and glasses. She is Hilary Clinton fgs, the least interesting thing about her is her looks.

I am Irish and was in school around the time Mary Robinson was elected president. The vitriol around her status as a working mother and her lack of interest in clothes and make up was astounding.

"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."

Sadly, you did. And what a travesty it was.

That is not what QT is about (or certainly wasn't originally under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir Robin Day). It is the only popular politics programme on television and I think it terribly sad that they have increased the number of panellists so no-one gets a proper say and invited more "popular" panellists. And I am not saying that Mary Beard should not have been on there (she certainly had 10x the claim than Johnny Rotten), in many areas she is the go-to expert. However, IMO, she spoke authoritatively in areas in which she had no authority. I know that is the norm these days but I expected better of her given her credentials.

I think that part of the problem, part of Prof Beard's crime, was to look confident, assured and happy.

People who aren't rich, good looking or famous aren't entitled to be confident and assured and happy in UK society. Perhaps I should have said Women rather than People.

So you get the 'who does she think she is?' attitude.

Also in the uk older people ie grey haired ones, are expected to be, basically, seen and not heard. I live part of the year in California, long grey hair, male and female is v common. It is envy and thus resentment of anyone who stands out from the norm which is another trait here.

larry, you disagreed with her. I didn't know you were also an immigration expert, but perhaps that explains why you feel so strongly about this.

My impression of QT (and I'm young and wet behind the ears, remember) is that the whole point is for reasonably intelligent people to debate stuff so that non-experts can understand it.

Naturally, in that situation, sometimes an expert will disagree. God knows, I can't watch Braveheart without wittering on about anachronisms and, as you note, I struggle not to pick you up on misplaced Lit references. But so it goes. It says more about pedantry amongst people who're talking about their own subjects than anything else.

I do honestly think you're sidetracking by focussing on your disagreement with what Mary said, rather than on the topic in hand, which is, why do some people think it's ok to respond like this when they disagree with a woman?

There is still a belief that women should go back to looking pretty and taking care of children and men. Let's face it, men ruled the roost for many years and women were seen merely as property, which is why she takes his name in marriage and promises to love and "obey" him.

This attitude has existed for thousands of years. Women's equality only became an issue around 100 years ago and even then it wasn't until the first and second world wars that women started to play a major role in defending the country and taking on jobs that were previously seen as "men's jobs".

It's not surprising that there is still an undercurrent of sexism around or that hate crimes towards women are still not taken as seriously as some other hate crimes.

I genuinely feel that society is going backwards rather than forwards. You only have to watch MTV videos to realise that young people are still being given the message that women are owned and controlled by men.

Fifty Shades of Grey, what a fucking awful book, it was a bestseller and it's all about domination and control of a woman by a man. I also noticed that a man had criminal charges pressed against him for re-enacting a scene from the book and beating his wife with a rope.

Sometimes I just despair and wish I told take dd and ds and run off with them somewhere were they won't be exposed to such cavemen attitudes. But I can't so I have to live here, bring them up as best I can and try hard to be involved with anything that calls for change.

TheRhubarb Fifty Shades was written by a woman and read by women. I cannot fathom why readers of this book cannot understand that it is deeply misogynistic

And I agree with LRD. Larry you are missing the point and I'm getting rather tired of repeating this. I did not watch QT. I have no idea what she said. I do not care. This is not about what she said or how she said it or if she should have been on QT, this is about the vitrolic abuse directed towards her for daring to have an opinion, for daring to be in the public eye and not live up to the expectations of how women should dress, look and behave.

Why are you finding it so hard to grasp that? Why do you keep coming back to the same old point that you didn't like her being on QT and you disagreed with her points. Whoopee for you.

Now can we please get back to the original point?

"I was in the top sets at school, went to Cambridge and am reasonably well spoken." I honestly would never have guessed that. Ever.

Thank you for your input larry, but whether Mary's opinion was correct or not, whether she should have been "allowed" to talk about things that perhaps weren't in her immediate expert zone isn't the point of the thread. But you have illustrated, nicely, where the sense of entitlement comes from with these misogynistic trolls.

You're kicking arse here, rhubarb, but I die a bit inside when you say women's equality has only been an issue for 100 years. And so does Christine de Pizan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_de_Pizan.

I do take your point though.

The shades of grey thing is properly creepy.

mindosa because this is what society tells women they should like. It's sexual liberation don't you know? Women are apparently choosing to be controlled and dominated.

I shudder to think of the green light that book has given dominant and controlling men to carry on abusing their wives/girlfriends.

Sorry LRD, was thinking back to Emmeline Pankhurst and should have said that women's equality has only been an issue in law and brought to the forefront by the Suffragettes. Of course women have been fighting their battle for much longer but as far as publicity goes, the suffragettes probably had the most success.

AA,

""I was in the top sets at school, went to Cambridge and am reasonably well spoken." I honestly would never have guessed that. Ever.

Thank you for your input larry, but whether Mary's opinion was correct or not, whether she should have been "allowed" to talk about things that perhaps weren't in her immediate expert zone isn't the point of the thread. But you have illustrated, nicely, where the sense of entitlement comes from with these misogynistic trolls."

You take them out of contect and use them for ad hominem abuse. You attack me rather than the thrust of my argument. Any similarity with the trolling that MB received?

I know ... I'm just a propagandist for my medieval women.

larry, that is really offensive.

AA disagreed with you, perfectly polite as far as I can see. And you're comparing her to the trolling MB received? What on earth is the similarity? Do you really believe that it's so heinous for you to be disagreed with politely, that it compares to that?

If you didn't understand the context of AA's remarks, you could simply have asked. You didn't need to assume there wasn't a context.

No, no similarity larry. HTH.

Kim,

Thank you for at least asking!

Fundamentally, successful intelligent people will always be resented and bullied by those jealous of them. Bullies always seek people's weak points. MB was the subject of horrific bullying but I am not sure if it was BECAUSE she was a woman, I suspect more because she was an intelligent well educated person saying some unpalatable things on QT. Eric Pickles gets bullied BECAUSE he is a self-satisfied Conservative but the form it takes is frequently related to his adiposity rather than his views.

Can we stop people attacking people for who they are rather than what they say? Not sure we can or even should unless they get into libel or threats of violence.

Curious as to your take, actually?

larry, I take it you do not see the irony there?

You are focusing on MB's background, qualifications, area of expertise and opinions rather than the point in hand, which is that no women should ever have to put up with misogynistic abuse.

I have tried as have other posters to set this thread back on the right tracks but you have insisted on trying to derail it by harping on about how MB should not have been on QT, how she does not speak for the common person and how much you disagreed with her.

You now accuse someone of focusing on your own background rather than your argument.

Touche.

May I politely suggest that if you want to discuss QT and Mary Beard's opinions on there that you start a new thread because this one is clearly about women having the right to be heard without being subjected to hateful abuse.

If you can contribute to that specific topic in an intelligent fashion then feel free. Otherwise your points are merely lost.

I have some paid work I need to be doing now so I shall leave this for a few hours and will look back in later.

larry, it was because she is a woman. You would like to think it isn't, I know. But it is quite clear: the language that was used was deeply misogynistic, as was that picture. And MB isn't the only woman who is speaking out about this, as has been pointed out.

Why are you so resistant to the idea that misogyny is relevant here?

I don't understand it.

LRD,

"AA disagreed with you, perfectly polite as far as I can see. And you're comparing her to the trolling MB received? What on earth is the similarity? Do you really believe that it's so heinous for you to be disagreed with politely, that it compares to that? "

Did we read the same posts? She firstly implied that I was boasting, quoting the first line of a previous post without adding any context. Then she spoke about how my post illustrated "my sense of entitlement".

How is she disagreeing with me politely? In what sense is what she says not a personal attack on me?

You have politely disagreed with me and I have enjoyed our conversation. AA has personally attacked me and not engaged with my arguments at all.

Eric Pickles does not get threatened with rape as other women bloggers have. He is not subject to sexual threats, he does not have people telling him they know where he lives, he does not have his face photoshopped onto a dick and balls, his own anatomy is not under discussion.

There is huge difference between the insults that might be directed towards Eric Pickles and the insults that are directed at opinionated women.

I'm sorry you seem blind to this.

Nope larry you are wrong. The type and level of abuse Mary received was because she was a woman. Absolutely no doubt about that. And all women in the public domain are subject to that type of abuse whether they are intelligent or not. (however measuring intelligence is a pretty subjective and generally patriarchal).

And I wasn't inferring that your Cambridge qualification illustrated a sense of entitlement, although I can see why you would think that, re-reading. They were in fact two separate comments. I think your speech as to why Mary Beard shouldn't have spoken authoritatively on QT was more of an illustration.