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?

Oh, of course! I always want details. It's great to be able to learn.

Please do find them - I would love to see.

I expect the TV stuff has a real study behind it, even if it's not a proper one. Would you mind awfully chasing it up?

Thanks.

Flippin heck. It was say last year and say 3 years ago!
No idea which programmes. Documentaries of some sort.

But ask around. I always put real life even ahead of documentaries.

Do a "study" yourself next time you are in the pub or at your uni.

Ok, calm down!

I just thought since you know so much about this you might want to educate me. If your point of view is valid at all, surely you would want others to know and agree?

Unless of course this is your standard form of communication.

You do know many people would take it as very flattering anyone was interested?

Attractive tends to be a word that implies an element of sexual connection - if a picture is being assessed for attractiveness (rather than, say, as being good looking), I think the language does imply a level of "if this person does or did fall into the sex to which you are attracted, how sexually attracted would you be?"

In this programme, Commander, were pictures of men also rated for attractiveness?

Um. Not sure. Cant remember. I think they were, but cant be sure.

LRD. When I think an answer is fairly obvious, and people only have to do their pown mim study if they are interested, then no I am not really bothered if some posters on a feminist forum agree with me. In fact, I would be rather surprised if they did.
I always think in terms of talking to many people, including lurkers, feminist or not, man or woman, not just those who reply here.

I'm sorry - is pown mim a typo or a kind of study?

I'm sorry if I offended you by being interested in your view. If you prefer, next time I will simply suggest what you're saying is nonsense, since it clearly is.

Happy?

I'm not sure what message you hope to send to lurkers by demonstrating you claimed to have an argument then crumpled when it was asked for by an interested party.

Clearly men, women, young people and children do not all judge attractiveness "very similarly"

I mean, it's just obvious, isn't it?

If it's about attractiveness, as in sexual attractveness, then children are clearly not going to have preferences! Young people and adults will differ as well. Depending on a plethora of things like fashion, their age, who they are presented with to fancy in the media, their sexuality, even things like social class come into play.

If it's simply about being "good looking" then again that changes over the years.

Just watch the teen idols (on eg TOTP) over the last 50 years and see that they look terribly different. Show a picture of the bay city rollers to an average teen girl now and they will piss themselves laughing.

That aside, and given that there are some constants (symmetrical features etc), what has this to do with what we are talking about?

Clearly sexualised images, and unattainable images, and images of random body parts unconnected to an actual person, are much more prevalent of women than men.

Clearly this is to the benefit of heterosexual males, and is not for the benefit of gay men or straight women, and I very much doubt they are made with lesbians in mind.

So what's the point to this side conversation again?

Yes, agree nice.

I suppose the point is, I expect some of us had hopes that being on the net and therefore invisible, we'd erode these stereotypes. And instead I think we perpetuate them in different ways.

I do think the internet is quite useful, though, in that people regularly get the 'shock' of realizing that the way they visualized someone isn't how they look. It's really interesting on MN threads about that, actually - I've noticed people assumed (on balance) that feminists are tall and dark.

bay city rollers

in case anyone isn't sure who I mean.

Remember ladies, basic attraction is immutable. Therefore, you will almost certainly need a cold shower after viewing this picture. Probably even if you prefer women

nice, I am struggling with my failure as a member of the human species.

Buffy if you've got a funny feeling in your tummy, it might be womb-on-the-wander female related hysteria you're suffering from.

Maybe you need to see one of those special yoni-doctors to get your femininity re-aligned?

proper lol at all those scottish types

I know loads of people who fancy him!

The 90's gave us peter andre under a waterfall, don't forget

That grin is a lol grin, not a wow he hawt grin, btw

They were a very apt and nice rendered bay city rollers back atcha style response

No he doesn't do anything for me either! I totally gave the wrong impression there.

Although his stomach was pretty impressive, to be fair.

ooh ooh if we talk about men and their physical desirability or otherwise, some posters will get excited because they can come on and say "You are objectifying men now so everything you have ever said is null and void ner ner ne ner"...

You wait....