Rather shocked that a woman sent these messages

[JacqueslePeacock]

I've just read that two people pleaded guilty to sending threatening, misogynistic messages to Caroline Criado-Perez in protest at her campaign to put a woman on our banknotes. (Guardian article here) I probably shouldn't be shocked, but couldn't help feeling a bit incredulous that one of the two was a young woman.

(It seems the Guardian couldn't quite get its head around it either, as the article refers to the woman's messages as "his" in paragraph 3!)

Re the issue of language versus beliefs, and Buffy's example of racism; there was a high profile incident in British football two years ago. A white player was accused of using a racial insult to a black player during a match. The white player never denied it, but said that in his culture it was not a racial insult. Nevertheless, he was found guilty of using racist language.

The verdict was that although he used racist language, it did not make him a racist. Of course the irony was not lost that the reviewing body was an institution heavily populated with old white men. Crucially however, the black player also accepted that the guilty party was not a racist. So in some circumstances, use of certain language cannot be used as definite proof that it is consistent with an individual's beliefs.

So, not absolute proof, but is it ever possible that someone can use language that is not consistent with their overall belief system?

Not quite. You were suggesting the abusers were victims of society. Suggesting their behaviour was the norm and somewhat expected in this society. Suggesting the reason for a woman to do this was to impress men.
I'm saying look at how the majority of society reacted in this case. You wouldn't come to the conclusion that it's society's fault.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that important to the cause of feminism that this one tweet happy, probably disturbed, woman's behaviour is labelled as misogynistic rather than just, well, criminal.

No Buffy, but the trouble is its not just a one-off. Situations get judged again and again by some who identify as feminist as being undeniably rooted in patriarchy. Sometimes to me it seems like women are allowed no personal agency at all by the very women who would shout most they champion it. It marginalises feminism. Every first and second wave feminist who ever raised a son they admired for his treatment of women has to face reality that while feminism today has advanced as far as men now being admitted to the fold, its realised they are looked at sideways as interlopers and examined under a microscope for any possible flaw to dismiss them as biased, deluded or fifth column. Many women who identify as feminist would still prefer that every man be part of the problem, because opposition better defines any belief and establishes the collective 'we' as being what it should always inherently be, in this case gender exclusive.

Both my daughters are feminist, no question they are, but do they identify as feminist? No. Take my youngest daughter, at age 12 she had to put up with grown men staring openly at her tits and their comments, boys bumping up against her 'by accident' in the playground. But she did not dismiss males collectively as pigs, she labelled her pigs selectively and not by gender. Part of that has to do with her inner strength and part of that had to do with the harsh reality that her female peers and adult women did their own fair share of staring and judging as well, so she would have to hate on the human race. Instead she learned to accept her body and projects contentment and happiness, and in public, from what I perceive, its women more so than men who dislike it.

I said you suggested that not said it. I'm glad you are back tracking a bit for a more overall view of it. Society seems to be getting lower down in the way this case should be viewed. I think you are closer to my view point.
I'm also glad you are not sure whether using racist language is the same as being a racist. I think we agree there.
I think, now you are saying there is 'low level misogyny' in society. You seem further away from society conditioning mass hatred. This is what I agree with too.

Sorry if that is how it comes across. I think we agree. Using misogynistic language does not necessarily make you a misogynist. For us to know if this abuser is a woman hater, we would require to know if she was aware of the campaign, specifically and deliberately going after a target because they were a woman. Or is this abuser a hater of everyone and circumstances meant this victim was targeted.
Say she was a woman hater, why is this? We can look at society and see it was a very small % of people that sent abuse. Suggesting it wasn't conditioned on a mass level. We can look at public opinion on the abuse. It was condemned by the vast majority. We can look at the legal side. It was legally punished and condemned. So not accepted by law or the general public. You can see that general society thinks it's wrong. We don't know if her micro society conditioned her.
We don't know if the abuser thought what she was doing was acceptable.
I think where I have a problem with applying societal constructs to such extreme abuse is it doesn't fit. It isn't expected and it's rare.
Societal constructs, I find easier to apply to stereotyping of women and men. When there is hate and criminal activity, there is no acceptability from society. It's not widely accepted and it's a small % of people doing it.

No Artetas at no point did I say that men did not get abuse.

But women get abuse for doing less and the abuse they receive is because they are women, and gendered in its nature. How is that not misogynistic?

And are we really going to have to go through the use of the word misogyny and its meaning again? Really?

People can do and say misogynistic things in one instance and not in others. Neither is it a requirement to hate all women all the time to be a misogynist. In fact I would argue that hatred is the top end of misogyny and misogyny just basically covers that underlying disrespect/dismissal/objectification/removal of women that happens on a day-to-day basis in a structural manner within our society.

But I would punt that if you send a woman death/rape threats over something so small in the grand scheme of things then yes, you don't like women much. I really don't see why saying that damages anyone and I have to wonder at the motivation for minimising this behaviour.

I don't think people are ushered in to a room. I think identifying as a misogynist or a racist is a belief system. I think in this case there may not have been these beliefs. I do believe people can be offensive for the sake of being offensive. Thinking, 'what is the worst thing I can type, what is taboo'. I think offence is the end goal not making an attack to express personal politics.
I think there is low level misogyny in society which is accepted. this isn't low level misogyny and it isn't accepted. I believe if society was a factor in this, then it would be more common. I don't think there is a disproportionate abuse aimed at women when compared with abuse as whole, online.

I don't think there are clear patterns of abuse. Maybe there is clear language or certain groups have a historical sensitivity but I think abuse is equal. Sensitivity to abuse of certain groups gives it more weight and maybe news time but I don't think there is any harsher treatment.
I think in the plane scenario, this would be the case for most countries. I think there is a natural urge, in a stressful situation, to what something clear and familiar. I think a class prejudice would be judge more for a pilot. I think people struggle to identify class in foreign accents subconsciously.

I think victims of abuse online are approximately equally men and women. It's hard to rank abuse from case to case. probably abuse towards women is perceived as being worse in our society.

It would be interesting. Maybe the global nature of twitter would make it hard to relate it to the UK. The only death threats I have seen have been brought to light because the victims are famous. You would think it would be of interest to Twitter and governments as prosecution for online offences are a fairly new phenomenon.

How is it perceived as worse? It's perceived as a load of silly drama queens looking for attention.

DWH - your post was a load of offensive nonsense. You really don't understand feminism if you think what you wrote is representative. Not having a clue is different to having an opposing perspective, for clarity. It's a pity really, because a child who is already receiving low level harassment could do with a parent who is on the ball.

How is it perceived as worse? It's perceived as a load of silly drama queens looking for attention

You don't believe that do you? How do you perceive it?

Mn educated me about feminism so I think the woman in question should be made to read mn feminism threads as part of her sentence.

Until then I had thought I hated feminism as the only other one I had met was a radical phd student who hated men and refused to shave (having said this, I was 18 at the time, I look back on her now as a 22yr old single mum pursuing her phd without the support of the bloke that got her pregnant in her final yr of her undergraduate degree with admiration).

Of course not Freya - that's how abuse is perceived generally. When a woman speaks out about she is perceived as a daft attention seeker out to cause trouble.
You don't see that dynamic at work in, say, football. If someone gives racist abuse. It is an Issue. People Wring Hands. There is an Investigation. Conclusions are Reached, whether affirmative or not.

But black players aren't (rightly) expected to take it, and politely ignore so as not to cause a fuss, or be encouraged to believe racist abuse is really a manifestation of smething Emphatically Not Racist.

That's the rub. Sure some people are ignorant fuckers and hate everybody and will pick out your vulnerability (even if just cultural) in order to hurt. We know that. But it really is women who are encouraged to deny misogyny when they it and not annoy people by pointing out it's not actually a relic.

Sal, I think black players did used to be expected to take it, the FA campaigned hard to get racism out of football and other countries still have issues with it sometimes. I was heartened that one club at least was taking the same attitude to "plays like a girl" comments.

I'd disagree. I think it does fall in to feminist theory but maybe more that women are perceived as more precious, defenceless and easy targets. Therefore, abuse towards a woman is seen as worse, IMO.

Regarding football, FIFA have issued their race guidelines across both men's and women's football. I think the profile of the male game attracts larger crowds and more idiots. Plus the profile attracts more attention to the racism procedure in the men's game.

Yes - things move on. Racists are the ones to have had to change their behaviour to stamp out racism.
It seems like to Stamp Out sexism, it's women who are supposed to change. By closing their eyes, dismissing it, etc. Because if we can be persuaded not to care, then there's no problem, is there?