A feminist view on the hack

[PuntasticUsername]

I was just reading the fb comments (yes I know, someday I'll learn) below the ITV News article about the hack and the swatting shite, which was fronted by a photo of MNJustine.

There was precisely one sympathetic remark - from a woman. Otherwise, men are suggesting that getting hacked is our own fault for being a website that is all about slagging off men; women say we're all boring and up ourselves anyway ("airy fairy women with personality disorders"); and most-liked of all is a man's comment saying "Christ, [Justine] looks just like how I'd imagine the typical wet blanket mumsnet user to look".

People really do hate women for having the nerve to get together and have opinions about things, don't they?

Just finished reading the last link, the solution to him not liking the "anti father" attitude of MN, is to attack their website and send armed police to their homes to frighten not only the mner but the sleeping children.
It's worrying to think he might have a dp/dw children of his own, if this is how he reacts to unknown women talking about/in a way he doesn't agree with, then how does he react to women who don't agree with him in rl?

I should have added, on the basis that the story in the mirror is correct.

Tried inicked. What was he trying to prove with that? All he really demonstrated was his ability to scare and intimidate women (and their families).

This anti father thing. I just don't see it.

I had a discussion with Bil about the protein world ad a while back, he said something like "all these complaints about a woman in a bikini being objectified, but none about the bare chested man being objectified, talk about double standards"

He couldn't see that it's his responsibility to make complaints if he didn't like it, turned out he didn't mind the male version if the ad, he just didn't like women saying they didn't like being objectified, and they should also be angry about men being objectified and doing something about it, and round in circles it went.

I think it just is the case that there are more men in IT.

Yes. There's around 23% - 26% women on average (depends on which stats you're looking at.) My employer is about average - but it's balanced by HR being around 51% women, and my own techy division (last time I had figures, not sure how it's changed in the last couple of years) was about 8% women.

According to one of the Computer Weekly/Mortimer Spinks Women in Technology reports (can't remember which year off the top of my head), 67% of women in IT have experienced sexism at work. Sometimes it's really bad harassment, but often it's just on-going daily microagressions, just things like signs on datacentre doors warning about "men working behind doors!" as if there's no hazard when it's a woman in there lifting floor tiles. Or yet another email addressed to, "Gents," even though I'm included on the distro list. None of these things are a big deal as a single event, but they add up so you're constantly getting messages that you don't really belong here in our techy environment.

And then there are things like maternity leave - some areas of technology move on quickly, and if you take a year out, your skills will be outdated. Most companies don't really have much in place to help women back into the workplace and get training on the new things which they need to know. And there aren't that many examples - you get to hear about people like Sheryl Sandberg, but in my direct reporting line, I'm the only woman for the next 5 layers till you get to an American woman, and then there are a couple of more layers of men to the CEO. This experience isn't unusual.

There's an awful lot of generally crap management in IT - this isn't so much a sexist thing, it's just that in many places, the career structure is that you can go so far up a technical ladder - and then you either sit there forever, or you have to go into people management, regardless of whether you have much in the way of people skills. I suspect this isn't unique to IT either, but on top of all the other shit women may have to deal with, you just get to the point where you think, why bother?

Also, I think that popular images of STEM don't help - programmes like the IT Crowd and Big Bang Theory. Many people aren't aware of the sheer range of roles in IT these days. It's not all coding and hardware (although there's nothing wrong with those, either.)

And I know this isn't really on topic, and I could go on for a lot, lot longer (and if you search my posting history, you'll find I sometimes have done), but it's a subject close to my heart. I am quite involved with promoting IT careers, especially to girls, but more and more I'm thinking, I'm not really doing them any favours, encouraging them to work in this industry. On the other hand, if we don't get more women in, it won't improve.

Anyway... as you were.

The "when is men's hour?" type business always reminds me of what happened as a child when we went to buy cards for Mother's Day or Father's Day. I would ask "So when is Children's Day anyway?" and my mum and dad would chorus "EVERY day is Children's Day...".

I always had that response too puntastic. In fact may have trotted it out once or twice to my kids.

Same with the argument against positive discrimination being unfair to white middle class men.

argument about ...

I don't see MN as anti-father at all - in fact I've seen the vast majority of users on here vociferously defending father's rights. I think the hackers have never spent any time reading the actual posts - but taken it on internet rumour. There is definitely an anti abuse ethos to the site, and it is definitely seen as a supportive site for women - I think that's the hacker's real problem with us, they just can't say it.

If you remember the F4J stuff, F4J posted a link to their latest campaign on MN FB page, which had teenage girls pictured with gaffa tape over their mouths. This, was, I think, a step too far, and quite triggering for some MNers. It all exploded from there, and if I had my cynical hat on, was all to do with F4J getting some publicity out of a spat with MN - and they do have form for this.

In F4j's defence, they did condemn this hacking, and the SWAT attacks, without any of the "they deserved it" crap I've seen elsewhere.

EBearHug - quite right. I was once in a large meeting of 50 people which started with the words "gentlemen .. and you" (that was me). Er, thanks. This was from a company trying to sell us something, apparently the fact that an entire woman might be present had not occurred to them in their well rehearsed sales pitch.

I'm now working for a small company - obviously it is still "gentlemen and you" and one of the guys said 'your ex-company is quite sexist isn't it?' I said it's not so much just sexist (although it definitely is), it's about othering. So other (male) friends had felt out of place for the twin crimes of being vegetarian and tee-total. We also had exactly two non-white employees as well (team of about 100). So we need all kinds of diversity introducing into IT, even though I agree it does indeed feel like 'what's the bloody point'.

it's just that in many places, the career structure is that you can go so far up a technical ladder - and then you either sit there forever, or you have to go into people management, regardless of whether you have much in the way of people skills

Its the same in my STEM company, and unfortunately some of these people just dont have the soft skills. Though on a positive we did have a female CEO for many years and our HR director is a lady, but previous to her it was always men, and yet the HR dept is all women. where do these men spontaneously appear from as none seem to be working there way up.

we need all kinds of diversity introducing into IT
That's true. My department is almost entirely male and it is entirely white. This is not entirely unlinked to managers doing things like sifting CVs by removing any whose names he doesn't know how to pronounce, i.e. anyone who doesn't have a traditionally English name, on the grounds he won't be able to understand what they say. (God knows why he thinks this - it's not like the office is in some all-white enclave - we don't even represent the local demography.) HR say we don't need blind CVs, because managers should have enough understanding that it's not necessary. FFS. Mind you, it's all academic these days, as we haven't been allowed to recruit anyone for years.

BreakingDad - I always think they slide over from Ops/Finance* or somewhere, supported by a great team of women who know the law etc. Of course, men are obviously better at strategy stuff....or something!

When I look to buy shares in a company I always look to see how their board is made up.

(* I probably shouldn't say 'having not done that well there'....Because HR is seen as 'easy' and 'soft stuff'.....until it goes wrong...)

outtogetyou

i think harry enfield encompasses it best here. Know your limits!

Puntastic I always wanted to join in with Movember
I've taken to leaving off the topiary downstairs in November instead (more Mowvember tbh), which helps save for Christmas too

In F4j's defence, they did condemn this hacking, and the SWAT attacks, without any of the "they deserved it" crap I've seen elsewhere.

No, the condemned the swatting. Not the hack.

It's funny how these lulas who clearly don't need to be around humans, let alone children, can't see how normal people see their actions.

Jeffrey I thought there was a female version of Movember - Fanuary or something...?!

There is definitely an antiabuseethos to the site, and it is definitely seen as a supportive site for women.

Well, LoveandMonsters, after the street harassment thread was started by Buffy here in feminism I went to look for what she talked about. At the time I did not even know AIBU was a forum name, I had assumed it was shorthand for something else. By the time I found it, the thread and the person Buffy talked about, it was already over. Some initial links and ID would have helped with that one. But it prompted me to go explore other Mumsnet forums. I found AIBU a bit of a chaotic mess so I moved over to Relationships:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/relationships/2448450-I-think-I-have-the-only-husband-in-britain

The last sentence of the opening message: 'I am getting to the point where my moral compass is going out the window and if I had a guy ask me to go for a drink, and paid me some attention, any attention, I'd go along with it.'

I found that to be a reasonable reaction from a person put under stress in such situations and I have seen the exact same feelings echoed by both men and women in forums specifically for partners with mismatched libidos.

A follow up from another poster: 'And if a man posted that last sentence because his wife (who does more than twice what he does around the house) wouldn't put out, all hell would break loose on here...'

To which the OP responds: 'I'm sure it would. So I'm fully expecting a flaming. However it is how I feel.'

The flaming, fortunately, did not eventuate. So, I think you are correct, in saying mumsnet is an anti-abuse ethos site supporting women, but I think combining the two in effect creates a space some people can acknowledge as gender view unbalanced. So a pessimistic view on the Not All Romans thread trending in feminism is that NAMALT will be mocked most in an AMALT leaning space just as NAWALT is mocked in a AWALT space.

dadwashere, L&M here, I nc'd again because I'm a bit nervy about the hacking.

I didn't read the NAMALT thread, but are you seriously telling me you don't know what aibu means? You've been here ages- I know your NN - have you never looked at other forums, or been aware of the most infamous forum on MN? I'm very surprised at that.

Was there anything "anti-father" on the post you've linked to? Or do you just not like a forum that is supportive to women in general? I always find this fascinating - that men are so threatened by women supporting each other, It smacks of 'waah, but what about us men, you're meant to be looking out for us!"

I had a brief look at the thread you linked to, and that much showed me that she was asked the same sort of questions that men are asked in this situation. Is he getting enough free time? Are you doing a share of the housework? etc.

If you want to see a woman flamed, well, women are flamed every day on aibu. Failing that, go on twitter. Search for any feminist, or prominent woman on there - you'll see it.

Btw - I don't condone any form of cheating, I wouldn't, myself be supportive of a dh or dw cheating on a partner. But you can be supportive of a poster who you feel is in pain, regardless of that.

Men putting pressure on women for sex in relationships can be incredibly triggering for many other women.

Take a look at the many historical threads on the staggering number of women who are rape victims on here. This may well, in some part, explain many of our responses to threads by men and women who are complaining about lack of sex. A further look in relationships forum may show you the number of women who post on her about their own partner raping them - often with the question 'was this rape?' or even the statement 'I don't think this was rape, but...' We are human, and bring our own experiences to the site.

Goodness DadWasHere! What awful women on that thread you mentioned. I hope you went and gave them the benefit of your sage advice the way you so generously bestow it on the women in the feminism section. I'm sure you could wile away many happy midnight hours telling women that their lived experience is wrong on all sorts of other sections of Mumsnet. Women are incorrigible, they need a level headed, wise man like you to set them straight. Away you go, I'm sure we'll manage without you.

Remember there used to be a Radio 4 equivalent to Women's Hour, called The Locker Room?

Very low audience figures. They pulled it in the end. Men didn't want it. Women's Hour continues apace, however.

The issue is that a certain kind of man thinks that maleness is state normal, but being female is a minority pastime with threatening connotations if women form groups. Yet as everyone say as, it's considered acceptable and even advisable for men to form groups. You don't get men's groups called named like 'coven' or 'gaggle' or 'best of vipers', do you?

Ultimately as Mary Beard pointed put in her televised lecture, throughout history there have been many men who like their women silent.

Nest

I don't think we have to be apologetic for taking the side of the woman, do we? It's okay to have a female bias sometimes. The internet is a largely male space and women have to suck it up so we are allowed to have a corner.

I'm sure on the largely male sites they are constantly checking their bias and ensuring every word they utter is 100 fair and reasonable...