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?

YY, that's so true. And really depressing, but I have to agree with you completely. I'd not thought of it like that.

I don't know if tech is making us less tolerant, but it is bringing us up against people we might not know otherwise, and not preparing us to be decent to them. And it is such a postive-and-negative thing. I went to a conference a while back where the speaker talked about how you create a social context where women feel safe coming out as gay - and her point was that while some women are always going to come out, others might really find context is a big factor. And I think the internet is amazing for that, because you cannot really feel alone in that situation. OTOH because it is often anonymous, I think agreeing with people verbally takes on a huge significance, so people feel they have to form tribes and it's not ok to say 'well, actually ... I don't mind if so-and-so does x, it's not an issue for me.'

I do think that is what we've lost - the capacity to say something isn't a particular issue for us.

I'm so sorry, that took me ages to type. buffy, thanks, will look.

That sounds amazing.

That is interesting, Buffy. I lean towards the latter, the former sounding a bit too close to the "allow (safe) access to prostitutes and then rape will be reduced" argument - but it would be good to know her conclusions.

Yes I can see / agree with all of that tei.

The question is I guess on balance whether the positive minority groups getting together in a way they were never able to before outweighs the us against them stuff.

There must be vast amounts of people who have been helped by being able to talk to like minded people. Look at relationships on here and all the assistance given to women in terrible relationships.

OTOH it allows people with despicable views / interests to get together and egg each other on.

It's a tough one.

I think the people it has worked out worst for are probably the people who traditionally had the power. Maybe hence a lot of the "them and us" stuff as well.

Also. I am not sure it wasn't "them and us" before. IME there are still big groups in society where men & women / boys & girls see each other as "other" rather than just people. So it's already them and us. Also demonstrated by random street assault etc etc.

Oh really?

I find it really fascinating the idea of how we live differently online and off.

I posted something on fb the other day and got loads of comments agreeing, I was pleased but talking to dh later I realised I'd deleted practically everyone who annoys me in a debate - my on line world is very small and safe and comfy.

Yes. Maybe it just makes the them and us more concrete when it's typed and never to be deleted.

In real life we tend to seek those who (broadly) agree with us as well though.

In real life if I am talking to someone and they express racist / sexist / homophobic / etc sentiments then I do not seek to talk to them again. If I cannot avoid them and / or argue with them (eg close workmates) then I avoid topics that will set them off.

I don't think it is unreasonable to do so on the net. In real life if someone said oh right you're a feminist you must be an xyz and I want to to blah to you then quite rightly you would never talk to them again, and would warn everyone you knew about them.

Same difference, surely?

Yes - but I think in my day to day experiences we're less open about our views offline. If I get chatting to someone on the bus the conversation isn't going to go anywhere near political or social views, whereas online I feel we are more confident about being open...

True.

So you've got a 2way thing where in normal society both sides are more restrained and empathetic / don't want to be seen as extremists etc.

I certainly am more open (honest!) than I am elsewhere in RL.

Maybe that is a reason for people to show more respect to each other's views on the net than elsewhere given that people open up more? But then i don't see that it's the people on the receiving end who should do that.

Really someone needs to teach a lot of people how to think before they post and utilise a bit of empathy.

Long and short is, that's not going to stop people going hey I'm going to hunt you down etc etc is it.

I've just remembered something else that article said about some men's behaviour online.

To refresh, in addition to the bits about self-censorship in public not applying online because it's anonymous and the writer doesn't have to "own" his views and suffer any consequences for holding or expressing them, there was another angle.

It was that some men are incredibly misogynistic in speech in real life, but only in the company of other men. So their views get filtered out in real life and women don't hear them.

Which is why it was a shock for women who'd stopped hearing outright misogyny and abuse from men, to read it on the web.

I agree a canny woman can spot the signs if a man's like that in real life because it always leaks out in other ways, but maybe only if you've trained yourself to have an antennae to listen out for it?

Just to add to that, I can always tell on this site if it's a misogynist or sexist man posting, even if he hasn't self-declared as a man and even if he's done that web trick of giving himself a woman's username. Can you?

New scientist report on one of the studies commander6 might have been talking about?

Comments:

1. The study used female faces only. Why?
2. Adult study participants were asked to rate for 'attractiveness' - you could argue that this wasn't an unconditioned process.
3. Later in the report, despite the headline being about 'beautiful' faces, it says that other studies have shown 'attractive' faces are actually 'average' faces.

1. I think this is quite interesting and I think sneering at Commander is not helpful.
2. Producing one study doesn't really prove a whole lot. Is your opinion on this fully formed and now unquestionable Commander?

Tonandfeather's post makes me think of the original "Turing test" proposed by Alan Turing in 1950. He said you could claim that a machine was intelligent if communicating with a computer could be the same as communicating with a human, and he used an analogy of a party game where a man and a woman would communicate with friends on paper, trying to convince people that the woman was the man, or vice versa (which doesn't sound like fun at all, but times change). So if you say "I can always tell" I wonder if it depends on how competent the opposition is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

It's not as simple as telling the difference between men and women online though.

This is about telling the difference between a sexist or misogynist man and a sexist or misogynist woman online. The nuances are always different dependent on their true sex.

That's not the same as being able to tell the difference between the sex of posters online when they are communicating in a positive way.

Granted rarely do people who hold hate-filled views display any 'competence' so I find it relatively easy to spot. I wondered whether others could too?

Turing test is an actual competition! With people trying to beat the humans!!!

Quick google apparently it is called the loebner prize. How good is that!!!!

Anyway, as you were

(Incidentally Buffy I came out as a bloke on the BBC brain test thingy as well. Make of that what you will!!!)

Have gone a bit overboard on the exclamation marks as well tonight. Will end this post on a more solemn note.

I feel like I'm typing in invisible ink on this thread.

I thought I replied to
You earlier ton, but it disappeared. Bloody iphone.

Will try again tomorrow!