On BBC today - "Is there a tech solution for hatred of women?"

[NiceTabard]

here

In the wake of the convictions today of threats etc to 2 women on twitter. The article comes from a standpoint that women are targeted on the net in a certain way & possible reasons for it.

It is a much stronger article than I am used to reading on the BBC and quite enjoyed it! The later comments are also broadly interesting.

What strikes me is that the article included the bald statement from a US tech journalist:

"If it's a social problem and not a technological one, what is the root of it? Ms Norton, believes it is stark:

"The social problem is that men are raised to hate women and technology is not going to fix that. What's going to fix that is a societal conversation about why that is and why it shouldn't be, and why women aren't a threat to men. And the technology gives us the opportunity to have that conversation. It's not always a pleasant conversation, but we need to have it. Just shutting down the voices we don't like doesn't make the sentiments go away."

This of course has resulted in a lot of reaction (understandably TBH) from men saying well I don't hate women so that is wrong, men have mothers who they love so that is wrong...

It's an interesting point for discussion though, as TBH the language and attitudes about women in day to day life belie an attitude of, if not universal hatred, certainly plenty of other negative feelings. Even ones which are so common they go un-noticed.

I think that men in general are certainly raised to see women in a range of ways that are not good. Not all of that translates to "hatred". Just maybe being dismissive / patronising / only interested in women of they are sexually appealing. Maybe even tiny things like my dad will always draw attention to a "bloody woman" doing something wrong, whereas when a man does the same thing he doesn't mention the sex of the miscreant! In my own life there are just tiny things every day that all add up to, well yes, generally men are raised to view women negatively, in some ways. Even the ones they like

From the POV of Ms Norton, having spent a decade looking into this I can well imagine that it must feel like all men are raised to hate women!

Anyway.

Bit of a stream of consciousness there! What do you think?

Art, it's partly to do with the nature of the threat. So a rape threat is more misogynistic/homophobic than a threat to say, punch Harriet Harman. Just as a threat to lynch a black celeb would be more racist than a threat to punch them.

Secondly. CCP of the banknote campaign was not a woman of previously high profile so very few of the tweeters would have been responding to her particular personality - most were, as LRD says, directed at "that woman" running the campaigns and so insults and threats were chosen specifically because she was a woman. If insults are chosen specifically because someone is black or gay, we name those as racist or homophobic attacks, so I don't see why insults to women would be the exception to this naming.

Men are stronger
[yes I know that feminists will disagree with that].

You imagine if there were "little men" instead of "little women".

So they feel that they have power. Which they also do as men stay in work for longer on the whole than women.

Commander6, I don't think feminists disagree that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman and certainly some of these dynamics come from this place. However, it's not just about that as the average 20 year old man is also stronger than the average 70 year old man Andi don't think ageist threats due to physicality are as common.

A lot of cyber bullying that goes on in teen girl groups IS based on misogyny.

9 times out of 10 the victim is pilloried for not conforming to a beauty standard, not being able to attract a boy or slut shamed for being sexually active.

The roots of that lie in misogyny and sexual repression of women.

I remember reading something very powerful once about what some men write on the web. The writer said that closet misogynists self-censor when in the company of women or men who would object if they expressed their real views. So pre internet, folks never got exposed as much to the hatred that infects these guys' minds. The web unleashed what was always there, but never got expressed openly before. Made me think.

I've been thinking about it a lot since joining this site actually. There really are some AWFUL men posters here. I don't meet guys like them in real life so is there a disconnect somewhere? As a balance, I saw a great guy poster earlier on, just in case anyone takes offense!

This will shock some people here but I agree that Misogyny exists and it is embedded in the patriarchy. But the thing is the patriarchy uses Religion to enforce the dictates trying to drive women back into the kitchen. As Ton says it is the sexual repression of us as a class and denying our agency. The problem I have is when I see other women denying a woman's agency based on church morals even when couched in feminist terms. To be honest some of the worst misogyny comes from the celeb mags with the too fat too thin labels. I wonder why we spend so much time attacking other women?

I do have issues with labels, all trolling and threats are wrong but my boys have been brought up to respect women. I still have issues with generalisation such as all men hate women, all men are potential rapists etc. It would be like saying all mothers are potential murders because of Jeyavani Vageswaran. Generic labels can be damaging, I know having had to deal with the all men are potential rapist crap that was rammed down DS2 throat by a teacher.

Buffy (and anyone else), how do you feel about artists such as Madonna and Lady Gaga? Do you feel that they conformed to patriarchal standards in order to get where they are now? I pick them out because they are known as particularly savvy artists who have a huge amount of control over their own careers, and also a certain amount of sexual content in their work. They may be atypical examples, but success and power has not really lead them to tone down any of their performances in terms of flesh on display and sexual references.

Should such artists use less sexual imagery in their work from day one? Or should they tone it down once a certain level of success is reached? Do they set a bad example to other women starting out in the industry that tits 'n' ass is the only way to get ahead?

Hmm. I might wish that they did things differently, but I'm not them and I don't feel terribly comfortable with the word 'should'.

Yes, they are quite privileged in all sorts of ways; yes, they're role models. But I'd much rather spend time worrying about the patriarchy than about them. Putting the focus on them is another sort of woman-blaming, unless it goes hand in hand of analysis of why they do what tehy do.

Why, what do you think?

I am not a music industry expert. But I think I can see a difference between truly talented artists like those two and a whole raft of less talented women artists who get sucked into the meat grinder and end up peddling endless sexual imagery without any substance behind it.

What I don't know is how you can encourage the less talented artists whilst not stifling some of the great ones, if there is an overarching patriarchal control of society. Perhaps you have to work for the greater good. Or perhaps look at why some are able to overcome it's influence, and some are not. I don't feel that there is any blame going on here.

I agree with every word of what Buffy said there. All of it.

Madonna and Lady Gaga started out in different eras, so I'd be wary of bandying them together.

But both are products of the massive con that feminism is about women behaving more like men are brought up to behave. The 80s drive for women's sexuality to be recognised and celebrated threw a lot of babies out with the bathwater, in my opinion.

It paved the way for the bullcrap we see now that any woman is a massive prude if she doesn't enjoy porn or pornified sex, both of which are crap for women (in my experience at least).

Women seem less able now to speak up and request the sex they enjoy - and there seem to be a lot of younger women who never experienced anything different in their young lives, other than crap sex with porn users.

But there's a pretty big difference between doing what Buffy is doing, and describing things in fairly impersonal terms, and talking about what these women 'should' have done. That to me comes across as if we're saying 'oh, if only Madonna didn't do this sexy stuff! How dare she?' Whereas if you acknowledge how what she does fits into a patriarchial structure, you avoid making her into a target for blame.

And it does really piss me off that women do get blamed. Mary Beard gets it the opposite way - not on here, but I've seen people do the whole 'oh, if only she were a bit better presented [this usually seems to mean 'if she dyed her hair] she'd be a much better advert for feminism'. And I'm thinking, fuck off, she's not there to advertise anything, she's a serious scholar.

Yes, exactly.

But then, it's not surprising women seek out vicarious power, because if it's a choice between that and nothing, what else do you do?

And then the patriarchy sets these women up and tells us to judge them, as well.

How much do the feminists on here care about their appearance?

What a bizarre question.

How do you mean?

You mentioned Mary beard.
I think it is a well known fact that people in the media sell their points better by looking a certain way. Not at all saying it should be thus, but it is, both to men and women.
Up to feminists whether they want to play that game or not.
How much do their views matter?
How much are they willing to sacrifice?

I am always awed at top sportmen and sportswomen just how much they sacrifice of themselves to get there.

Yes, we're all discussing how the media use appearance to sell things.

It's not 'up to' feminists to play that game: you cannot simply opt out of the patriarchy. It would be nice, but ...

You do get that you're talking to (individual) feminists right now, right? I mean, I may be misunderstanding you or we may be having language issues, but we are mostly feminists on here, so there's no 'their views', they are, by and large, our views. And we're not the borg, so none of us can really say how much appearance matters.

What do you think? How much does your appearance matter to you? And why? And do you feel it's a feminist decision, or not? Do you think it matters?

Tcha. I keep sending the memo out via the International Feminist Brainwashing Society, but do you listen?

Some days I don't even believe the sisters are plotting to take over the world.

I absolutely agree with everything. We are not the borg.

Ah, my grin was to arte.

I didn't it.

I can't be in your gang.

Yes misogyny is rife amongst trolls on the net. The threats to rape and the nasty comments about how women look are very very commonplace. Alongside the men that think it is fun to troll feminist spaces.

But the net is a reflection of the misogynistic society we live in. Boys are taught by the media, etc to view women negatively. That is why a boy being told he is behaving like a girl, is an insult.